, as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

, as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on Posts and Telecommunications.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Leader of the House I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In 1977 already, announcements were made concerning the Government’s plan to make provision for a system of home-ownership in urban Black residential areas. Since then I myself and officials of my department, have liaised with other interested parties and today we have before us an instrument by means of which provision is being made for Black people to obtain leasehold for 99 years in urban Black residential areas. The leaseholder may utilize the premises concerned for any of the purposes for which they are intended. He may build on them, improve existing buildings and if necessary, demolish with a view to improving the land. The right of leasehold may also be sold, donated or otherwise disposed of, and such a right may be bequeathed or inherited intestate. Even if such an heir should not be entitled to live in the residential area concerned he will be able to inherit and realize the right to his own advantage. During the Committee Stage I shall move an amendment concerning the definition of “a qualified person” to the effect that his progeny, therefore not only his children, will also enjoy the right of inheritance in respect of the relevant property. If a need arises among the Black people to obtain leasehold rights in Black residential areas— even if there is no prospect of such a leaseholder occupying the house—the Government will even be prepared to investigate the possibility.

It is also envisaged that employers in particular will, by means of the provisions of the Bill, be able to grant financial assistance to employees in order to acquire leasehold rights and make improvements to the relevant premises. Financial institutions, employers or other money-lenders are being permitted by means of the provisions of the Bill to lend money on mortgage, for instance for the erection of buildings on premises and the general advancement of a business enterprise or profession that is carried on there. By taking out a mortgage, the body that lends the money obtains adequate security for its loan, and it can enforce its right of recovery against its lien by means of normal court processes.

In order to manage the system, it was decided to expand the registration offices in the Department of Plural Relations and Development, where the necessary registration of leaseholds and bonds will be made. It is envisaged, in order to save costs for the people involved, to prescribe by regulation a simple registration system, accompanied by minimal fees and levies. The system will be efficient, and not only will the rights of Black people with a right to a leasehold enjoy full protection, but the rights of mortgages too. In the Committee Stage I shall move, by way of an amendment, that the jurisdiction of a Bantu affairs commissioner court in regard to offences be limited to Black people only.

The Government believes that this step is an important breakthrough and will foster the pride of the Black people in their homes and may lead to model Black towns and cities. In addition it is a step towards enabling the Black people to create an environment for themselves according to their own taste, by erecting the type of home that is in accordance with their status and financial ability. I feel that this measure will bring about great progress for the Black people in our country, and I believe that it will be welcomed from all quarters.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is correct in saying—as far as hon. members in these benches are concerned, anyway—that we welcome this measure. We are certainly going to support the Second Reading of the Bill in principle. We will give it our support because it is statutory recognition, we believe, of the permanence of the urban Africans, albeit it is “permanence in inverted commas” as the Minister once called it.

Having said that, I have to inform the hon. the Minister that although we accept the Bill in principle, we do have several serious reservations about it. We have put some amendments on the Order Paper, amendments which we will debate during Committee Stage in the sincere hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to meet our objections to the Bill. I can assure him that we will move the amendments only in the spirit of trying to improve this Bill, of trying to make it more generally acceptable, not only to ourselves, but also to the Black community to whom it applies and to the people who are going to assist applicants to obtain home-ownership under the 99-year lease plan.

One of the objections we may have—we will not be sure until the hon. the Minister tells us what his amendment is going to be— may have been met by the hon. the Minister himself.

I think it has.

Well, I hope so, because we too are anxious to have a much longer continuity, shall I say, of the leasehold than the Bill in its present form:

Our chief reservation about the Bill concerns the fact that freehold is not conferred. This, of course, is a difference in principle between the hon. the Minister and members on these benches. We are in favour of freehold rights for Africans in the urban areas and therefore we obviously would have preferred that a Bill which is going to make home-ownership a much easier proposition for Africans should be on a freehold basis.

The reason why we would prefer freehold is not that we think in any way that 99 years is not a long span of time. Indeed, we admit immediately that 99 years is a very considerable span of time, more particularly, I might say, in the context of Southern Africa, because who among us in this House is bold enough to say what he believes this southernmost comer on the Black continent is going to be like in 99 years’ time, or I might say even in 19 years’ time? Some of us really wonder what it is going to be like in nine years’ time. It is therefore not the time span per se that we object to; that is not the gravamen of our objection.

We really object to the non-granting of freehold to Africans because it discriminates against Africans. They are the only population group in South Africa who are not permitted to own freehold in the urban areas in the so-called White areas, even in those areas which have been set aside for their exclusive use. If one is a White, Coloured, Indian or Chinese person, one has the right to own freehold property, albeit only in an area set aside under the Group Areas Act.

Indeed, White people, irrespective of the length of their sojourn in this country, irrespective of whether they are fairly permanent—another quaint term of the hon. the Minister—or permanently permanent, irrespective of the fact that they may only have arrived in South Africa yesterday, either as tourists or as aspirant permanent residents, may spot an attractive property in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg, shall we say in Houghton, and they may buy it the next day without any difficulty provided they can afford it. An African, however, born and bred in the southern Black suburb of Johannesburg, which is Soweto, who has lived there all his life, who earns his living there and has brought up a family in that area, may not own a home in freehold in Soweto. Indeed, until this Bill was introduced, he would have had no hope of having a house except on a monthly tenancy, unless he had been fortunate enough to acquire one of the 30-year-lease homes which were available to Black people until round about 1967—I think that is the correct date—when that was scrapped and reintroduced again only in 1975.

I have tried to understand the rationale behind all of this. It is an ideological necessity evidently which makes it necessary for Nationalists to create what I can only call, in the 99-year context anyway, an optical distinction between ownership and occupation. So far the only explanation given by the hon. the Minister was one which I for one, I am afraid, consider to be nonsense.

The hon. the Minister said also a couple of months ago—I think it was in the same interview when he talked about the “fairly permanent” nature of African tenure in the urban areas—that he considered that ownership of land would lead to a justifiable demand for political rights. This is an argument which I find very difficult to understand. Ownership of land, of course, is not, and should not be, a qualification for the franchise. In most Western countries, citizenship is the qualification for the franchise. As I have pointed out before, foreigners who can buy a house in freehold in South Africa are not able to claim the franchise as a result of owning freehold nor are people on 99-year leases in England denied the franchise because they do not have freehold. Therefore, despite the hon. the Minister’s earlier explanation, we are still at sea about this, although I must admit that over the years all of us have been bombarded with all sorts of logical justifications for the non-granting of freehold to Blacks in the urban areas, and over the years we have had the benefit of the political convictions of hon. Ministers opposite from the days of “baasskap” to the days of Bantustans to the days of separate development and to the days of independent homelands in twelve easy stages—perhaps they have not been quite such easy stages.

Having said all that, I repeat that we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill because it will certainly give a considerable measure of stability and security to the urban Black community, a state of affairs we believe to be absolutely essential if we are to have a stable community which is able to build up some hopes for the future, or to become involved to some extent, anyway, in what I call the free enterprise system in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister will have read with pleasure, I am sure, the joint statement that was issued by the executive director of the Urban Foundation, Mr. Justice Steyn, and the president of the Association of Building Societies, Mr. J. M. S. Hefer, a statement in which those gentleman welcomed this Bill because they said it constituted a most significant step towards the establishment of a real and meaningful form of ownership for urban Blacks who qualify under section 10(1)(a) or (b). The statement went on to list some nine advantages which would result from the Bill. I agree with most of them though I cannot say that I am in complete agreement with all of them. Anyway, they certainly listed a number of important advantages which Africans would enjoy as the result of this Bill. At this stage I will not worry the House by mentioning those advantages because they were published in the newspapers and most people would, in any case, have read them. The first shortcoming is therefore lack of freehold.

The second shortcoming that we see in this Bill is contained in the definition of a “qualified person”. Here, as I say, it is possible that the amendment which the hon. the Minister has mentioned but which is not on the Order Paper may meet our objections, but I shall tell him what our objections are anyway.

Firstly it is a very limited qualification in the sense that it is limited to Black South African citizens who hold section 10(1 )(a) or (b) qualifications, and here I am referring, of course, to section 10 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. It is also limited to succeeding generations born of those people, providing they also qualify in their own right, in other words providing they are either born in the urban areas, having been there continuously for 15 years, or have been with one employer for 10 years. The word “continuously” is very important in the context of the Bantu (Urban Areas) legislation.

Although the hon. the Minister was originally not keen to allow the children of former South African citizens—i.e. people who were South African citizens, who lost that citizenship by dint of their homelands becoming independent but who nevertheless retain their section 10(1) rights—to enjoy this freehold if they were born after independence; I gather, even in terms of the existing legislation those people, and the children born before independence, can enjoy this particular right of leasehold. But in the event this Bill now includes one generation born after independence. I might tell the hon. the Minister that trying to work out what this qualification meant has caused me great anguish, because whoever drafted this got us into such a muddle of ambiguities as to make it well-nigh impossible to know how many “nots” there were and what they meant in the particular clause. I say this because one has to read this in conjunction with section 12(1) which lays down that anyone who is not a South African citizen, and is not a former South African citizen who became so by virtue of independence, may not be in the urban area. The opening sentence of section 12, however, states—

section ten …

Travelling at a rate of “nots”!

It is therefore a most ambiguous clause, and that is one reason why we sat down and tried to draft something that we believed would put into simpler language what the hon. the Minister really intended, though I must admit right away that we have broadened this to include section 10(1)(c) Africans, although the hon. the Minister limits his qualifications to section 10(1)(a) or (b) Africans. Section 10(1)(c) of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, as the hon. the Minister will know, includes the wife or the dependent children ordinarily resident with the man who qualifies under section 10(1)(a) or (b). We think it absolutely fair that one should include the wife ordinarily resident with the man who qualifies and the children ordinarily resident with such a person. In other words, we are not going as far as asking for the impossible, which would be that the man could bring his family in from the homeland when they are not normally urban residents. I do not need to tell the hon. the Minister, however, that we are not in favour of influx control and that we would, obviously, allow people to take up and enjoy normal family life in the urban areas. We are, however, trying to get some concessions out of the hon. the Minister and therefore we have not moved amendments which we believe to be well beyond the realm of possibility as far as the Government’s policy is concerned. We are, as I have said, concerned about the exclusion of section 10(1)(c) Africans and of the wife and children who live with a man who qualifies because we think that, if these people have to move out when the man dies and may sell the house and take the proceeds but may not continue to occupy the house, this is going to be a most traumatic experience for them at a time when they will already be undergoing a considerable trauma. If, when the head of the family dies, as a consequence they are going to be put out of their home, we believe that this is quite wrong. I hope very much that the hon. the Minister will give this further consideration, particularly since we have become a little more lenient as far as divorcees and widows in the urban areas are concerned in that we have in recent years allowed them to take over houses when their husbands have either divorced them or died, particularly if they were employed and able to pay the rent.

Have you read clause 1(d)?

Yes, I have. Let me tell the hon. the Minister what clause 1(d) is going to mean. It is going to mean that I will be Knocking on his door every second day. He is going to get very tired of it. He may think that he does not mind, but he does not know how persistent I can be and will be. Clause 1(d) gives the Minister the discretion to allow anybody else to have leasehold and stay in the house after the man has died. I am going to be inundated with requests from widows to help them who will say: “They want to put me out of my house because my husband has died.” I am then going to remember clause 1(d) and I am going to go rushing along to the Minister, asking him to help the family remain. I know it gives him a discretion and that is why I want him to look at it again.

I also want the hon. the Minister to consider referring the whole question of the rights of African women in this regard to the Law Commission during the recess, because it is a most complicated situation, more particularly as far as customary marriages and the right of inheritance are concerned. The hon. the Minister may not know it, but if a man dies intestate, the wife can never inherit. The property goes to the nearest male relative and that can be a man in the homeland. The woman can be immediately dispossessed, even though she is a section 10(1)(a) or (b) African herself. I should like the hon. the Minister to look into the whole complicated structure in terms of which the wife loses out if she is a Black woman because she is part of the modern industrial structure on the one hand in that she lives in an urban area while on the other hand she is part of the tribal structure. She will therefore lose out both ways. She loses the security of the extended family and she does not gain the advantages of the modern industrial society. I must therefore ask the hon. the Minister to consider re-examining that situation.

The third shortcoming is not embodied in the Bill itself. We are, however, aware from statements the hon. the Minister has made and from questions and answers in this House that certain areas are to be excluded from the 99-year lease provisions. The western Cape, of course, is one case in point. We have heard over and over again, especially from the Cape members of Parliament of the NP, that the western Cape is a preserve for Coloured people only and that therefore Black Africans can only come in on a migratory labour basis. I want the hon. the Minister to re-examine that whole context. I want to remind him that the Eiselen line was not drawn in heaven. It is therefore quite possible for people to revise that position. The Eiselen policy came in in the mid-fifties, if I remember correctly. It is now 20 years later and I think that, in view of the realities of the situation, the Government ought to re-examine that.

The fourth shortcoming is one of a technical and legal nature and I am not going to dwell on it at any length because my hon. colleague from Hillbrow will deal with that aspect.

Oh!

Members are quite right to groan because he is going to teach them a lesson in respect of the whole legal set-up of conveyancing and all the difficulties involved in the registration of title deeds. I think the hon. the Minister and his department are unaware of the complications involved. Simply handing this matter over to the Bantu Commissioners, or simply “Commissioners”, as they are going to be known in the future, is not going to be the answer. It is a highly complicated procedure. I agree with the hon. the Minister that one wants to make it less expensive but at the same time one has to be careful that one does not make the whole title deed situation impossible to carry out in the context of practical considerations.

Finally, I want to point out that this whole structure rests on what is the underlying fons et origo of urban legislation as far as Africans are concerned, that is the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act and, in particular, section 10 of that Act. That too, did not come down from the Mount, and there are possibilities that section 10(1)(a), (b) or whatever subsection may be amended. To some extent this gives a rather shaky foundation to this entire new and far-reaching social system which is being introduced by this Bill.

However, it is also very expensive and in view of the far-reaching financial interests that are going to be involved in the implementation of the 99-year lease scheme—as far as the Africans themselves are concerned, who are going to have to raise mortgage bonds; as far as employers are concerned, who are going to assist Blacks in acquiring houses in the urban areas on a 99-year lease; and as far as the building societies are concerned—it is important that we have some real assurance that section 10(1) of the Act is not going to be tampered with as far as it affects the 99-year leasehold situation. I mentioned to the hon. the Minister when the Plural Relations Vote was being discussed that I was worried at the way in which, for instance, the West Rand Bantu Affairs Administration Board was putting difficulties in the way of people who wanted to acquire the leasehold houses. I refer to the extra R1 000 which was being added even before the house had been paid for or built and the additional charge for the connection of water, electricity and other services. I wondered why it was that the money that had been collected over all these years through the services levy to pay for infrastructure like that, had not been used and why it was necessary to place this additional burden onto the would-be aspirant 99-year leaseholder.

I believe the hon. the Minister will have to consider putting large amounts of money at the disposal of building societies because I do not believe that the building societies, which by their very nature are innately conservative—they have to be innately conservative—are going to be able to supply the necessary funds. Therefore I think the State will have to make money available at low rates of interest so that the building societies will be able to operate the Black housing schemes which all of us want to see implemented. If necessary, employers could be drawn into this idea on a sort of rand-for-rand basis. However, I do not think the financing is going to be as easy as some of us think.

I want to point out the very significant part that regulations are going to play in the implementation of this piece of legislation. All the existing regulations are going to need very close scrutiny and some of them will definitely have to be repealed. I think the hon. the Minister will remember that assurances were given that regulation 1036, for instance, was going to be repealed. That is the regulation which permits a superintendent to decide arbitrarily whether or not a man is a fit person to stay in his house and, as a result, he can then lose his leasehold tenure. I hope very much that that regulation is shortly going to be repealed. I am sure there are other regulations which are going to need amendment, if not repeal, as well. By the way, I hope that regulation 1036 is going to be repealed as far as trading premises as well as leasehold premises are concerned. I think that is very important.

I think that some sort of moratorium on the foreclosure of mortgages is also going to be necessary because, in a way, what we are instituting is a system that I personally was taught to regard with the greatest suspicion when I studied economics. That was a system of tied housing in terms of which an employee was tied to his employer so that even if he was dissatisfied with his employment he did not dare to leave because his housing was tied up with his job. Therefore, I am worried about that. If a man loses his job and an employer has advanced money to help him to pay for his house, what sort of moratorium is going to be declared? It will have to be a six-month period or something like that to enable such a man to find a job with another employer who is prepared to take over the commitment in this regard.

In conclusion I cannot, since it will be going against nature, resist pointing out to the hon. the Minister that if he is really serious about the numbers game, i.e. about the vanishing point of Black citizens in the Republic of South Africa, I must tell him that the Bill as it is—maybe his amendment will help in this—is certainly not going to encourage homeland leaders who have not yet taken independence, to take independence. On the contrary, it is going to dissuade them from taking independence for the simple reason that the qualification, as it stands, is going to disqualify the grandchildren, born after the date of independence, of urban Blacks who were former South African citizens. It is natural therefore that the homeland leaders, bearing their urban citizens in mind, are likely to say that they are not going to take independence as it is going to disqualify the grandchildren of their urban citizens from acquiring the much desired security and stability which is offered by the 99-year lease.

Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of the final aspect raised by the hon. member for Houghton, she will probably find that this Bill, when it becomes law, will have the opposite effect from what she is hoping for, because it may result in the Black people in Bantu residential areas in White areas being able to make contact with those in the homelands more easily. Over the years the hon. member’s argument has been that these people fear that they may be endorsed out by a single stroke of the pen. But the grounds for that fear are now being removed, and consequently that argument falls away. This is precisely what will happen.

Furthermore the hon. member also said that she will be inundated by requests for concessions as a result of a provision in this Bill. I want to help the hon. member by recommending that she should recognize the legal, elected representative of the community councils, elected by their own people, and accept that they will look after their people, that they will see to their own needs and that the hon. member for Houghton herself will no longer need to interfere, whether asked to do so or not. It will be of tremendous advantage to the community life of Soweto in particular, if they are allowed to make use of the services of their own representatives.

The hon. member for Houghton then pointed out four shortcomings in the Bill. Although the hon. member supports the Bill, she was at the same time anxious not to point out the good aspects of the Bill. For instance the hon. member did not make any mention of what Mr. Justice Steyn said in his declaration, because it does not suit her case. I shall leave it at that, however.

It is a traumatic experience for me today to rise to my feet after that hon. member and try to reply to her on the basis of a speech in which she supported the legislation, but also expressed a great deal of criticism of it. I feel it is an equally traumatic experience for the hon. member to support a Bill of this nature at all. I nevertheless want to express my gratitude to her for doing so.

As regards the hon. member’s first objection concerning leasehold in contrast to full right of ownership, she gave a long discourse on why it ought to be right of ownership. The hon. member, however, did not take note of the rights concerning real estate, immovable property, as they have developed over the years. In order to make the whole matter easier for the hon. member, I should like to refer her to the Encyclopedia Britannica which is also available here in our library. From page 47 onwards there is extremely informative data that summarizes the situation throughout the entire world very well. For the hon. member’s sake I should like to quote fairly extensively from it because I feel it is important. I quote—

Let me add at once that we have also experienced this development here, for instance when we produced the Sectional Titles Act, in which a considerable limitation is placed upon rights concerning fixed property. The Encyclopedia Britannica continues—

We hope that this aspect, viz. the development of a sense of responsibility, is to be obtained by the implementation of this Bill. I quote further—

We know that the hon. member for Houghton tried to seize upon the argument that if a greater say is given in respect of land, political rights must inevitably follow. I want to adopt the standpoint today that this is not necessarily the case, that it is not a sine qua non. My standpoint is that it is a natural development that is taking root here. As this summary in the Encyclopedia Britannica points out, it grants a right on the local level instead. The summary goes on to say—

This will be the case on the local level. We have already had the development of community councils here, bodies that will ultimately be entitled to manage their own budget. The following and essential step that will be taken will be to have ratepayers and consequently people who will have a personal interest in how their environment is managed at the local level. This, then, is what the Bill is making provision for. It is not necessary to go into the position in the socialist countries, unless the hon. member for Houghton feels that we should definitely take cognizance of it.

I do not want to dwell any further on all the objections of the hon. member for Houghton. Her third point of criticism was that in terms of the Bill there is no clarity about the application of the legislation on the preferential area here in the Western Cape. If time permits, I shall come to this aspect presently. I just want to say in passing that I am of the opinion that when people cannot enjoy these rights in a specific area, it does not necessarily mean that it is discrimination—as the hon. member said. Presently I shall try to prove that with this development the essential question must also be asked: Where is the housing and urban development going to take place in order to avoid certain social and economic congestion resulting? I hope I shall have the opportunity to discuss this aspect too.

The Bill can be very clearly divided into fundamental principles on the one hand and technical aspects on the other. Other hon. members on this side of the House will pay more attention to the technical aspects. But allow me, Sir, just to point out that the Bill will result in there being an opportunity for the private sector as well to contribute towards financing the housing of Black people. I use the word “housing”, but would much rather have spoken about the establishment of townships and of urban development. For instance, the hon. the Minister of Finance has made concessions in respect of the liquidity of institutional investments. He has made approximately R300 million available for further expenditure by those bodies. I should like to suggest that, as we did previously by means of concessions to the banks, we should allow a percentage provided that it is used for specific development. A few years ago, for instance, it was done to assist the farming community and to stimulate farming. I should think that we could consider indicating specifically in future, when such concessions are made, that liquidity is being encouraged in the private sector for such matters as these, viz. the provision of housing, the creation of infrastructure and the establishment of townships.

Furthermore, the Bill has a very important characteristic and that is that it is going to assist entrepreneurship at the level of the man in the street. For instance, I am thinking of the fact that until now there have always been limitations on the mobility of the Black entrepreneur. He could only manage a business enterprise in the area where he qualified. If I interpret the definition of “association” correctly, it means that a Black man will not necessarily have to carry on an activity involving a juristic person or a professional partnership only in the area in which he resides. But even if the Bill does not go that far, I nevertheless want to argue that it is a future development that is being made possible.

Naturally, the Bill provides for inheritance. It is therefore possible to dispose of the rights that are being obtained here by means of a will. I want to point out, however, that according to Black intestate law of inheritance, it is unlikely that there may be more than one heir—according to the advice that I received from a legal adviser. If, however, it should be possible for anyone to create coheirs by means of a will, the situation may arise that they could claim the right of ownership and the right of occupation. I feel it is a matter that will very definitely have to be dealt with in terms of the proposed section 6A(1)(a) in order to prevent slum conditions arising or a situation arising—as one of my hon. colleagues said on one occasion—where 37 heirs want to live in the same place. Consequently I want to recommend very strongly to the hon. the Minister that he should consider bringing it home to administration boards by regulation or otherwise that when they plan the conditions of the certificates for a specific area, they should see that co-owners or co-possessors cannot also occupy a place that they have inherited.

We welcome this Bill. We believe it may be the beginning of the creation of a strong middle-class among our Black people, people who will manage their own affairs in their own areas and in their own community. They are now being encouraged to channel their income into their own institutions, that in their turn will bear the responsibility for providing finance. For instance we know that Black people have R141 million invested in White organizations at the moment, money that is probably being used by those organizations. That money, in my opinion, should be channelled to Black housing.

We welcome this Bill. On this matter, I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that for the first time today we are very pleased to agree with her.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I just want to assure the hon. member for Bloemfontein West that the hon. member for Houghton did indicate to this House the reason why we are supporting the principle of this Bill in terms of which we are now granting a 99-year lease and creating permanence for the Blacks. She did mention the positive aspects and principles contained in the Bill. In a moment or two I shall deal with one or two other positive aspects of the Bill.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West also referred to the difference between leasehold and freehold. It is true, and we are well aware of the fact, that in the United Kingdom, particularly in London, property is basically owned on the basis of leasehold. It is a form of registration which is known. However, I want to tell the hon. member— and I am sure he knows—that leasehold has become foreign to the South African way of life. The whole tendency of deeds registration is in fact towards freehold title. I concede that leasehold is immovable in terms of the law, that it does confer 99-year rights and that many of its provisions are the same as in the case of freehold, but it has gone out of existence.

With regard to the other aspects, the question of the Western Cape will still be dealt with by this side of the House, and I myself shall deal with the question of perpetuity in the course of my speech. We welcome the statement made by the hon. the Minister today with regard to the amendment that he is proposing, because it would appear that what we are now creating is really not the first generation of leasehold right owners, but rights in perpetuity. The question immediately arises that when one inherits in perpetuity, will that mean that one will only be able to own the property, or will it entail rights of occupation as well? Without the rights of occupation perpetuity itself is not as meaningful as it should be.

In terms of this Bill a 99-year lease is a singular break-through and the whole country, in the unitary form of government in which we live today, will welcome it and more particularly the African population will welcome it. Some years ago an African gentleman came to me with a title deed that he had for Alexandra Township where he owned the property. He also brought a notice of expropriation from the department. He asked me why the department wanted to take away his title. Clutching the document to his chest he said: “This is my title deed; this is my property; no one can take it away from me.” That is the feeling of security and of permanence that this form of tenure gives to the people. It means the security of not being thrown out of the house in which they live, the security of the family for which they are responsible, and of not living on a tightrope where their home life can be upset at any moment. That is where the important part comes in. This must be seen, and I am dealing with the positive aspects of the Bill, in the light of the establishment recently of councils—I will not say “community councils”—which have been given teeth. We are told they are getting powers above the powers given to the ordinary local authorities and that they will be responsible directly to the Minister. They will also be responsible for all the community development within their own areas. However, the hon. the Minister has not told us from where the funds will come. Looking at the benefits of leasehold as contained in the Bill and the eventual conversion to freehold, which the hon. member for Houghton and this side of the House are pleading for, it could mean a permanent and very substantial source of revenue to the councils that are being established in the areas in which these leasehold properties are situate. This will give teeth and meaningful administrative power to the councils to which I am now referring.

The Bill deals with two aspects of freehold title. The first one is the question of the residential rights of occupation itself.

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member realize that all the properties on the beach front of Durban are held under leasehold? They all have a 99-year lease.

Yes, that is quite right. I am aware of the Durban beach-front, but is the hon. member aware of the law of 1952 which provides for the conversion of leasehold to freehold? In dealing with residential title we are dealing with the rights of the residents themselves. In this respect we make a strong plea to the hon. the Minister to convert to freehold title because this will give a form of permanence, it will provide a title deed and it will bring these people on to the same plane as Whites, so that there will be no discrimination as to the rights of occupation of Blacks as against Whites. Furthermore, the right of residential occupation should not only—as it will—include the right to inherit, the right to break down, and the right to rebuild, but also the right to sub-let to the people of their choice, provided they comply with section 10 of the Act itself and that they are lawfully permitted to be in the area. We hope that—through the positive aspects which are provided for by this Bill—the stereotyped houses which have been standing for many years will, in many cases, be replaced, and that houses that are rebuilt and new townships which come into being, will bear the individuality of design and expression of character of those people living there by their own free choice. I believe we must appeal to employers in South Africa to assist those employees of theirs who are eligible to obtain 99-year leasehold rights to redesign, alter, or even rebuild the homes they acquire according to their own tastes and their own needs. I hope employers in South Africa will play a positive role in this respect.

Another positive aspect of the Bill is the provision which grants Black people the right to acquire businesses on a 99-year leasehold. This creates a new dimension for the Black businessman. We know that to the Black businessman the question of capital poses the biggest problem. Many Black businessmen are in need of capital. Many of them fail to obtain capital by way of loans because they cannot offer the necessary security. Once a Black businessman has obtained a 99-year lease, however, he will be able to offer that as security, thus enabling him to raise capital, to obtain mortgage bonds and to extend his business. I believe that through this a Black businessman will also be able to obtain more credit facilities in order to carry on his business in an effective way. All these aspects, we believe, are positive and beneficial. We see them as a breakthrough, and therefore we have no hesitation in welcoming this new form of development. We simply hope it will also be extended to Blacks in all areas. We are not sure yet to which areas these provisions will apply. We hope the hon. the Minister will tell us which areas will be covered by the provisions of this Bill.

I now want to refer to another aspect of the Bill. The whole system we are discussing here today will depend on the registration of the 99-year leases which are provided for in the Bill before us, particularly as embodied in the provisions of the new section 6B, which deals with the establishment of a registration office and the appointment of registrars. In terms of section 6B a registration office will be established at the office of each Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner for the registration of 99-year leases. This, to me, is the most important aspect of the Bill, because it provides the key to the security of the entire system we are talking about. When we talk about registration, I believe, with respect, that we are talking a bit too lightly about the implications and the complications of the registration of 99-year leases by the registration offices which will be situated at the offices of all Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioners. What does that really mean? I hope the hon. the Minister has given due consideration to this. Had this Bill not been introduced at this late stage, as it has, it would obviously have been appropriate to refer it to a Select Committee. However, allow me to point out some of the many difficulties we foresee in connection with this legislation. In order to run this registration system a staff is going to be needed. That staff will have to be trained in order to carry out their duties in connection with registration. There are hon. members of this House who are conveyancers and who sat on the Select Committee on the Deeds Registries Bill. I am sure those hon. members will, although not openly, support what I say here today. Examiners will have to be appointed to examine these deeds. It is true that the 99-year lease will, in terms of regulations, be a stereotype document. In that connection I do not foresee any problem. Then, however, there are going to be bonds. These bonds will have to be registered over the properties. A bond is not a simple document. Every single building society, every single lender has his own terms and conditions attached to the bond itself. With the bond there are a number of matters which have to be dealt with. There is a session of the bond which has to be dealt with. There are part payments which have to be noted on the bond.

Furthermore there is the question of inheritance. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West referred to the question of inheritance. In this connection I should like to point out the following. We are now entering an era in which a will, for example, will have to be interpreted by an examiner in a deeds office. The will have to be interpreted for registration purposes. The interpreter will have to establish who is the correct heir. The will itself will have to be interpreted. It will also be necessary to establish whether there is a question of usufruct in terms of the will. One of the difficulties in interpreting who the correct heir is arises from the fact that an African is entitled to have more than one wife.

In certain tribes either the first or second wife bears the main heir. It is therefore a complicated matter when it comes to the interpretation of the will of an African. There may also be writs and sales in execution. The will will even be more complicated if there is a question of insolvency. There are also endorsements which will have to be made on the bond itself. There is also the possibility of interdict since they are going to do business. They will be part and parcel of the community. The insolvency laws with all their requirements will also be involved.

The idea of registration is not just a simple thing. We cannot assume that it will merely be a question of a stereotype of bond or lease which can simply be handed in at the deeds office. We must also bear in mind that these bonds or leases will have to be handled by people who are untrained to deal with a very complicated and intricate legal matter. The whole system of the registration of bonds and leases developed over many years and the personnel who handle such registration have had years of practice in the deeds offices of South Africa. Although we have trained personnel, they still have difficulty on many occasions when they deal with these matters.

What onus does the registration of a bond or lease place? In terms of the relevant legislation there must be an efficient system of registration calculated to afford security of title and ready-reference to any registered deed. This is the onus that will be placed upon the commissioners who will have to set up deeds registries. I express sincere doubt whether they will be able to discharge this onus. There is also the question of security. Deeds registries will contain the bonds and the leases themselves and they will therefore have to be housed properly. In order to house them properly, one will need security, firstly against fire. One will also need security against civil commotion. This is especially the case since these registries will be situated in various places. Our normal deeds registries can offer these securities, but can these securities be offered in the areas where these leases and bonds will have to be kept? What happens if there is civil commotion and the Bantu Affairs Commissioners’ offices are upset and all these bonds and leases are destroyed? What will have to be done? One would have to start all over again and there will be terrible confusion.

There is the question of the convenience of the practitioners. I ask the hon. the Minister whether anybody will be able to draw up a deed of lease. Will anybody be able to draw up a mortgage bond and register it, or is it going to be left to conveyancers who will be able to draw up these bonds, cessions of bonds, part payments and so on? Who will be able to prepare these documents? If such documents are rejected by the commissioner, who is going to amend the documents and deal with the rejections? There is also the question of searching the records in order to find certain documents. Will there be a proper research department for the convenience of conveyancers and members of the public who would like to look up documents they require? All these aspects must be carefully considered in order to give satisfaction to the various parties concerned. The Africans must be placed in the position that when they obtain a lease, they must be able to rest assured that they have a long lease which is safe. Those leases must be as safe as money deposited into a bank. One knows that the bank is going to hold one’s money safely. The institutions who lend money for the purpose of obtaining property must also be in the position where they know their money is properly secured and properly registered. Then there is the business community who will also be involved. We do not believe, with respect, that the system will satisfy and meet these requirements.

The solution to the problem which I have outlined on our behalf, is, however, as simple as it is obvious. The machinery exists to cope with this very question of registration. A trained staff exists. An office exists. The examiners exist. The records exist. Security exists. These things exist in every deeds registry in South Africa. These registries are willing and able to accept registration of these leases and bonds. It will save the State expense in having to set up these offices and having to train the staff because staff will already be available there. It will save time because it is going to take some time to train these people in examining the deeds. Deed registries are, as it is, going to transfer to computers and micro-film and records can be kept separately.

I made inquiries and ascertained certain facts. Let me refer to Soweto township itself, to Mofolo, White City, Orlando, Moroka and Tobago. They are townships which are laid out, townships for which there is a general plan in existence. These general plans have been drawn up and signed by a land surveyor. So the plans are there. The plans however, and I understand it, have not been filed with the Surveyor-General. This could, however, be done. These plans could then be filed with the Deeds Registrar of the area in whose jurisdiction they fall. These plans are available at the moment. I know that the Johannesburg City Council has actually got these plans and I believe they can now be used. The areas have been pegged and marked off and the dimensions have been made available. One does not now need separate diagrams, as mentioned in the Bill itself, to demarcate the areas, find the beacons and measure the areas off because that is all there. One can therefore dispense with the diagrams and do the registration on this basis.

There is, of course, another precedent we can follow. Registration of sectional title is done by what is called the Torrence method. The Torrence method, very simply, means that the title is registered initially. Thereafter one does not have to draw up a new deed from scratch. All one does is to place an endorsement on the existing title deed whenever it changes hands. The Torrence method could therefore be applied to this as well. There is an exact parallel between the situation we find ourselves in today and the situation in which the Transvaal found itself in the early days of “voorkeurregte”, i.e. leasehold rights. These “voorkeurregte”were leaseholds owned by various owners in townships which were not registered in the Deeds Registry. For this exact parallel I want to refer the hon. the Minister, if I may, to Act No. 34 of 1908, the Townships Amendment Act which amends the Townships Act of 1907. This made provision for those very “voorkeurregte” being placed in the Deeds Registry. The Mining Commissioner and the Rand Townships Registrar were then obliged, in terms of this old Transvaal law, to register every single leasehold property in the Deeds Registry. For example, a “private leasehold township” is defined in this Act as meaning a township—

1. (a) in which lots have been sold in leasehold; and
2. (b) in respect of which the Government receives no share of stand licence moneys; and
3. (c) which is situated on land whereof the freehold is vested in some person other than the Crown or on Crown land held under lease by such person.

There are consequently the private leasehold townships, which I have just defined, and also semi-Government townships which were also transferred. One is the example of the township Fairview between the township of Jeppestown and the township of Malvern. In that township the land was leased to George Edward Fawcus by Frederick Jacobus Bezuidenhout by a deed of lease dated 8 March 1889. The land consisted of some 25 morgen. The leasehold rights belonging to various people were then absorbed into the Deeds Registry with no problem at all.

Section 26 of this Act, in fact, even deals with the question of boundary disputes. In terms of section 26, if two owners of a property agreed to certain boundaries, those boundaries were implemented. This could also be adopted in this case. Then there is the right to convert to freehold title. We can follow the precedent that has been set and, in terms of what we are applying for, we can arrange for the leasehold properties to be converted to freehold title. I want to tell the House that I have learnt from inquiries that the Rand townships’ registrar, for example, is registrar in respect of leases and also in respect of mortgage bonds on the leases. It is a very simple matter to adopt this procedure as it exists.

There is one other aspect I wish to deal with, namely the question of the cost involved. If the normal procedure is adopted and the tariff charged is the one laid down in the legislation on conveyancing fees with regard to the registration of a bond or a lease, I fear that the tariff may be a little too high. Relief is provided in the Bill itself in the proposed new section 6A(9) as set out in clause 2. In terms of that provision stamp duty is to be waived. In the amendment we will propose, it will remain exempt from stamp duty.

I want to suggest that we could simply amend the tariff laid down in the Deeds Registries Act to provide for a nominal charge for the registration of a bond. I can assure the hon. the Minister that the building societies would welcome the knowledge that there will be a proper deeds registration system, even if it will cost a little more. They will then feel happier that the money they have lent will be properly secured and that the relevant documents will be properly obtained. As regards the building societies as such, as the hon. member for Houghton has said, it is a question of the percentage they will make available on the properties. It is obvious that they will not provide 100% loans. Whether they will settle for 75% loans or 90% loans, I think that a duty and obligation rests upon the State to assist in making good the difference by means of a collateral bond to enable the lease to be registered in the name of the person concerned.

We shall support the Bill on this basis.

Mr. Speaker, it was actually with a great deal of disappointment that I listened to the hon. members of the Official Opposition who have participated in the debate thus far. They did in fact say rather weakly on the one hand that they accept the principle of this important Bill. On the other hand, however, they raised so many objections, most of which were unfounded, that one really gained the impression that they do not want this Bill to succeed. It simply does not suit them. Have you ever heard so many anomalies in your life as the hon. member for Hillbrow raised here today! He said that “leasehold is foreign to our way of life”. Then he gave a long argument about how well the old leasehold system contained in the old Transvaal ordinance worked. He said that we should follow that example, that we can get it from the deeds office, etc. I am sorry to have to say this, that while the hon. member for South Coast indicated very clearly what happened in Durban in connection with leasehold, the hon. member for Hillbrow made out that the leasehold was repealed by Act 61 of 1952. If he had made any kind of study of the very fine system of leasehold, he would have discovered that the repeal only concerned certain mining towns in Johannesburg.

Today we are actually experiencing an historic occasion because it is not only a leasehold system that is being created here, but also a new registration system for our Black people. In view of that one would really have expected speakers opposite to show a great deal of enthusiasm about this. They did not, however, do so, because they lose sight of the fact that we are creating a real system here in terms of which our Black people will be properly accommodated and in terms of which they will enjoy the leasehold right and protective rights.

I think that we can say today without fear of contradiction that there can be no real objections in principle to this leasehold system. Let us assess it, firstly, against the his torical background of our legal system as we know it. Hon. members will readily agree with me that one finds various ways by which property rights are granted to people throughout the civilized world. We also have various legal figures. If we page through our legal history and look at the source of the Roman-Dutch law, viz. the old Roman law, we see that apart from the right of ownership or dominium, which is the correct name, there were also two quitrent systems in regard to State land, viz. emphytensis and superficies. What did these rights mean? Emphytensis was the quitrent on the land subject only to annual vectigal. If he wants to erect a dwelling, he obtains the right of superficies and he pays an annual fee. If we page back to Roman-Dutch law we find in that legal system—and no one will deny that some of the concepts used in that legal system, are still used in our legal system today—that apart from the right of ownership there are various other customary rights in terms of which the right to land can be granted to people. I just want to refer to a few examples, for instance quitrent, leasehold, the right of “beklemming” and the right of “opstal”. These titleholders paid quitrent or rent, or they paid “cijns” or “erfcijns”, but all these customary rights had three elements in common. Firstly, one could not obtain right of ownership. Secondly, they had protected rights and thirdly, they paid an annual or ground rent.

What do we find if we look at the principal Act, Act 25 of 1945? We find that in the old section 16(1)(c) the right of occupation of houses is laid down by implication, and not right of ownership. If we go further we shall find in Act 7 of 1955—an Act that was unanimously accepted by this House and an Act that amends section 16(1)(c)—that that Act mentions occupation of houses more specifically. In that Act it is determined that the authorities will have the right to sell the right to occupy a house. To sum up, I can therefore say that from a legal-historical point of view, we have a system that has applied continuously throughout. We have it in the mother Act that appeared in 1945. In 1955, too, an Act was unanimously adopted in this House. In other words, we did not dream up the system of leasehold. The system can be linked up not only with the Roman Law, not only with our Dutch Law, but also with the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. This brings me to the second reason why I expected those hon. members to be enthusiastic about the chief principles in this legislation. What does this proposed leasehold mean? I think we can sum it up easily by saying that it consists of six elements. The first element is that the titleholder will have the right to use the premises. Secondly, he will have this right for a long term, i.e. 99 years. Thirdly this right can be bequeathed, transferred and sold. Fourthly such a person can effect improvements to the premises. Fifthly—and this is important—he can use this leasehold as security. Finally—and this is also a very important element—this right will be capable of being registered. The hon. member for Hillbrow dwelt at length on the registration system. Who would be so naïve as to go and fetch a crowd of strange officials from Port Elizabeth and put them in an office and tell them: “Now register?” This Government does not do things like that. What he will never understand, of course, is that a new system is being created here for the Black people of South Africa. It is also probably reasonable to ask with what requirements a good registration system normally has to comply. Firstly I should say that security of justice must be established by such a system of registration. The hon. member quoted from the Deeds Registries Act. What is provided by the proposed section 6D in the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act will create, is taken verbatim from section 99 of the Deeds Registries Act. In other words, the State stands security for a deed that will be registered in that office if the Registrar or officials act negligently or mala fide. Where can one have a better surety for one’s deed? Where can one have better security of justice? Secondly, the rights of the money-lender, the man who will give the Black man the bond, must be protected and he can obtain a properly registered bond. What is the practical implication of such a system? I think it is very clear that the qualified Black man will become the registered owner of a registered lease at little or no cost. Secondly, the person who lends him the money to enable him to build his own home, will become the registered holder of a mortgage bond. Our ideal is to expand the home-ownership scheme—the hon. the Minister of Transport also referred to this in his budget speech—so that our Black people, too, can share in it. We will therefore now be able to comply with the demands made by the local authorities, the central Government, the Railways, the Post Office and the private sector, inter alia, as regards their individual home-ownership schemes. So far, it has been the State that has for the most part undertaken the financing of housing for our Black people. We know that just as the Government is unable to provide accommodation for all the Whites, all the Coloureds and all the Indians, it is unable to provide all the Black people with houses. I feel we now have the right, in terms of the provisions of this legislation, to introduce a proper, registered leasehold system. A proper registration system is also incorporated in this legislation. We can therefore now hope and expect that employers will also assist in providing our Black people with proper housing.

Mr. Speaker, my instinct is to side with the hon. member who has just sat down in respect of the question of registration of these bonds which will enable Black people to buy houses on loans from building societies or from other people. It seems to me that the hon. the Minister would have been very ill-advised to introduce a system which is going to be queried and challenged by every building society which might be approached by a Black person requesting such a loan. I have made some of my own inquiries with the building societies and I have found that they are happy with the system as set out. Nobody is forcing them to lend money for the provision of housing in the Black areas. I am therefore quite happy that the Bill before us is designed to provide for an official certificate which will indicate that the area in question, the site, has been identified. I do not think we need go much further than merely having the official identification of the site, because the problems in regard to the surveying of all these areas, as I understand it, will cause a considerable holdup before the system can be put into operation. That is the information that I have and I do not know what comment the hon. the Minister will have in this respect. The hon. member for Hillbrow has an amendment on the Order Paper, but I think we can discuss the matter further during the Committee Stage. I do think, however, that the provision which is made for a site to be identified in a proper fashion and for it to be registered in a proper fashion so that access can be had to it and reference be made to it, is adequate for the situation in which we find ourselves in this regard. It would be a mistake for us to start a political argument on the basis of the Bill on whether people who have freehold title or people who have leasehold title are going to provide the Government with more headaches in terms of the political rights that they may demand. We must accept one aspect now, i.e. that there are a million people there. Whether they have freehold or leasehold title, they are a political fact. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister will be able to evade the political fact of the million people living in Soweto, whatever system he introduces, and however he might attempt to evade the political implications, they are going to haunt him and the Government as long as this Government remains in power. I do not see any particular point in discussing the political implications of leasehold or freehold. What is happening here is that a permanent right is being provided. As I understand the policy of the Government, this aspect is contrary to what the policy has been. In the past we have heard talk of “tydelik permanent” etc., but I have never yet known the Government to come forward with the policy allowing that these people can acquire a permanent right. 99 years is about as permanent as one can want. We should therefore not argue about how permanent it is. It is a permanent right of 99 years which will see every single one of us in this House off the ground …

Under the ground.

Not me.

Where hon. members want to go, is not my particular problem. The hon. member for Houghton is determined to be here at the end of the 99 years from now and if she looks as young at the end thereof as she does now, I can only wish her the best of British luck. What we are seeing here—I hope the hon. the Minister will not mind my referring to it again—is the following of a policy of advance in reverse. This particular hon. Minister is like Speedy Gonzales: he is reversing as fast as he can. We on this side of the House, funny enough, are pushing him backwards and many of the hon. members opposite do not seem quite sure about how far he ought to go.

Sir, we welcome the measure before us as it is a step in the right direction. The question of freehold title is something which can be discussed on another occasion. What is being created here is a right, a disposable right, and quite how it is going to work I do not think we know. It will take us a bit of time to find out how it is going to work and what part this is going to play in the capital formation in private hands, in the hands of Black people. I would say that this is the first step in their participation in the system of free enterprise. What is also being created here is an interest amongst Black people, an interest which will have the effect that they will defend themselves against an uncontrolled influx of people from outside, people who are not qualified, in terms of section 10 of the Act or any other legislation. I think one is going to find, with legislation like this, that it creates the right of Black people to permanent residence in the Black urban areas, because of the shortage of housing, the shortage of employment and all these factors. We are now distinguishing, for the first time on a permanent basis, between the Black man in the urban areas and the Black man in the rural areas.

Throughout this session we have tried to bring home to the Minister the fact that pluralism relates to the fact that the Black man permanently exists in the Black urban areas, as well as the fact that the urban Black has an identifiable right to be in the Black urban areas, as against the Black man in the rural area, whose interest appears to be to seek access to those urban areas. As the hon. the Minister—as he said he is going to do—is going to transfer powers to the authorities which he is creating in the Black urban areas, he will find that one of the things on which they are going to insist more and more is the control of those areas which are under their jurisdiction, especially from the point of view of people coming into areas where housing is not adequate or where employment is not available to a sufficient extent.

I think the hon. the Minister is taking a step here which is profoundly important. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West correctly said that it was a historical step which the hon. the Minister is taking. He is indeed doing that. I want to say that we support the Bill, although we obviously have some reservations. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he will introduce an amendment, which I imagine, although I have not seen it, will deal with people in terms of section 10(1)(c) who are in the process of qualification. If it is not so, we shall debate that matter with the hon. the Minister in the Committee Stage.

I merely want to point out one other thing, i.e. that one of the problems which we shall raise in the Committee Stage is the protection of the rights of people who lend money. In our opinion there has to be an absolute certainty on their part that they may not be required in terms of a prescribed period which is laid down by an administration board, that in one way or the other the interest which they have in a property may lapse, may be passed to the board or in any way may be affected. There is a clause in the Bill and when we discuss that we shall raise this matter to attempt to establish it beyond doubt that there is no possibility that the right of a mortgagee can be seriously affected in this way.

We shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to react at length to the speech of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat At the beginning of my speech I should just like to congratulate the department and those who drafted the Bill and looked after its technical side, on their work. From a technical viewpoint, it is a complicated, but nevertheless interesting piece of legislation and I could not find fault with the technical side of it. I also want to congratulate them on having obtained the approval of all the interested parties, especially the building societies that are involved here. We also have the position here today that all the parties approve this Bill in principle.

One can ask oneself: What is the technical situation as regards this legislation? I want to summarize it. In this Bill, certain real rights of Black people in White areas are being protected in almost the same way as the Whites’ real rights. In this process there are a few stages. The first stage is that there must be a survey to identify the relevant plot. The survey requirements at issue here, are not precisely the same as the requirements for Whites, but the requirements are still more stringent than in many other parts of the world. The registration system that is being given effect to here, is not precisely the same as the registration system for Whites, but it is still better than 90% of the registration systems in the rest of the world. In other words, we basically designed this system to protect rights whilst at the same time keeping costs as low as possible and enabling the Black man to effect his registration himself. In other words, the officials of the department are going to assist the Black man as far as possible.

As the hon. member for Hillbrow said—I have sympathy with what he said, because a great deal of what he said is correct—this is of course a complicated system. There are many facets to the matter. It is also true, however, that this department has a great deal of experience in this regard. Hon. members will recall that there was a deeds office in the Transkei before it became independent. This department therefore already has the officials to provide for this aspect. I agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow that one could incorporate this registration system and include it in the registration system for Whites. It could have been done, but there are certain aspects that one must take into consideration, such as—in the first place—the tremendous convenience that the proposed system entails for the Black man. This aspect, in turn, is closely connected with the cost aspects. If we take a closer look at the matter, we find that this registration system has actually answered its purpose very well, viz. to lease White land to Black people for 99 years.

I just want to look at this system for a moment. The leasehold system, or long term contract of lease, is not unknown in the South African legal system. We are well acquainted with the registration of leasehold rights. When we designed this system for the Black man, however, we had to ask ourselves whether that system of right of ownership of land, against the Black man’s cultural historical background, would apply to him.

I just want to quote from a well-known book, The Bantu Law in South Africa, by Seymour—

The Bantu has no knowledge of the concept of the right of ownership of immovable property. It is totally alien to the Bantu system. What we are doing here, is to bring the two systems together as well as we can and to grant the Bantu, who does not know the right of ownership of property, the right to lease land for a specific period. In other words, we have made an adjustment in order to fit in with the Black man’s background. The purpose of this is very clear. Black businessmen can now carry on business enterprises and stability can now be established in an area so that people will remain there longer. Employers can now contribute their share and give their workers the opportunity—which they want, after all—to obtain houses more easily. This is a tremendous advantage. The White people’s employers help them directly and indirectly to obtain houses, but to date the Black man has been unable to obtain a house in that way. This is a tremendous concession to the Black man and enables him to increase his standard of living and improve his living conditions. The employer can help him, too, now, as he helps his White employees, to obtain a house. One wants to appeal to the White employers to make use of this. It is going to have a tremendous influence upon the political life of the people in the Black areas, because the community councils must also have a certain “permanent” electorate with whom they can discuss matters and with whom they can plan ahead. I want to state that where community councils are established, it is essential for there to be a politically stable element in that area. This is one facet of the long-term contract of lease that we must not disregard.

Finally, I could draw the conclusion in favour of this legislation in principle, viz. that we are now effecting a tremendous improvement in the living conditions of the Black man. His security, his certainty as regards “permanence”, are being increased tremendously. The Department of Plural Relations, that is pre-eminently known for and has sympathy with the administration of the Black people, is also taking over the registration of deeds, and that also entails a tremendous advantage for them. What I think is important, is that this legislation is once again proof of the Government’s absolute conviction and determination to cause development to take place for all the people living in this country. What is being provided here is an opportunity for progressive development. All that must happen now, is that the people concerned must grasp it with both hands. The sincerity of this side of the House is being proved here. Most important of all is that I believe that this legislation makes it possible for the Black man to develop politically and socially. We are giving him what he actually wants, and that is why I take great pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria West says that he supports the legislation. In fact, all the hon. members on both sides of the House welcome the legislation. Some hon. members were, however, not as enthusiastic as others. But I think it is only due to the fact that the session is now almost over and some of the hon. members are perhaps a little tired.

The spirit of this legislation is welcomed by the whole of South Africa. It is a milestone in our history and a breakthrough. Therefore, we are very pleased with this legislation.

†I believe priority No. 1 should be to house all South Africans in homes that they own. This is a concrete step in the right direction. Even if it means granting 100% bonds, the Government should sell on a leasehold basis all homes presently occupied by the tenants so that they can become owners of those homes. It will give them a sense of permanency. Overnight one will have created a man with a stake in the welfare and the wellbeing of his family and of his country. The stability of home ownership will ensure that the owner will improve the property and that he will be able to make a contribution towards the rates on that property. In times of external or internal problems, home owners will stand shoulder to shoulder because they have a stake in the country. I know that the Government have allocated additional funds for housing, but those funds, whilst most welcome, must be supplemented. There are private organizations and employers who are also making substantial funds available. However, is this not the time for the Government to consider floating a massive loan, specifically to eliminate the backlog of housing and to provide more amenities, particularly in the Black townships? Naturally, the other race groups must also be assisted, but this hon. Minister and his department are specifically concerned with the Black people and the Black townships. Private enterprise must also play a greater part, even though, according to a report of the hon. the Minister’s department for the year ending 31 March 1977, employers assisted with over R8 million and the building society movement assisted with an amount of R4 million up to now. I believe that the large construction companies should be encouraged to borrow money locally and abroad, and if money is borrowed abroad, foreign exchange losses must be covered by the Government. If sufficient money could be generated for more mass housing schemes, it would provide employment for the unemployed and would also stimulate the economy. The Government could release hundreds of millions of rand for re-use if it came to terms with the building societies. The Government should sell the leasehold houses to the tenants, and if a building society grants a 100% bond it may require the Government to sign surety for, say, 25% of the loan. The building societies will need concessions in order to attract sufficient funds from which all these bonds can be granted. The effect is that the building societies will be paying the Government on all houses transferred. Thus hundreds of millions of rand will be able to be recycled into further housing schemes. Just to explain to the hon. the Minister what I have in mind, let us take the following example. Say the price of a leasehold property is R6 000, and the building society grants a bond of R4 500. The Government can get the building society to increase the bond to R6 000 in one of three ways. The Government and the building society can discuss which method is preferable. However, I should like to state briefly the three alternative ways. The best method for the Government is merely to guarantee to the building society the extra R1 500. This means that if the building society grants R4 500 and the Government guarantees the R1 500—it is a limited guarantee of R1 500—the building society will then grant a loan of R6 000 instead of a loan of R4 500. The effect will be that the Government will get out its entire purchase price immediately.

Imagine if one did that in the case of every single house sold. One would be able to get back all one’s money overnight. The hundreds of millions of rand received back in this way could immediately be recycled into further housing schemes. The other two methods are either to give R1 500 in a full collateral scheme to the building society, or R750 in a half collateral scheme to the building society.

Either way will ensure a R6 000 bond. The snag connected with the last two suggestions is, however, that the Government will then have to invest the amount mentioned with the building society. That will either be R1 500 on a full collateral scheme, or R750 in a half collateral scheme.

In terms of my first suggestion, where the Government guarantees the 25% balance of the bond, there is no investment at all to be made by the Government. Tenants can become home-owners overnight and the Government will obtain sufficient funds on registration of all these building society bonds in order to create a situation in which the backlog in housing in South Africa can be eliminated in a relatively short period of time, because the Government will then have the funds at their disposal. Needless to say, it will also be a most dramatic way of reducing unemployment and of creating a boom in the building industry, as well as in the other industries that are closely associated with the building industry.

In regard to the registration of transactions, as suggested in this Bill, I merely want to say to the hon. the Minister—I do not want to become involved in a dispute—that I have had discussions with certain individuals connected with the building societies—not with the building society movement as a whole— and that some of these individuals have voiced a note of caution and a note of concern. Their concern is that the present system of registration in our deeds offices throughout the country is a tried and tested system. There are professional people who scrutinize this. Deeds are prepared in a specialized fashion and registration is supervised in a fashion which is to the satisfaction of all concerned. In this regard I merely want to ask the hon. the Minister to watch this particular system carefully, because there are people in the building society movement who have some reservations about the system which is about to be adopted. They feel that they would prefer the system presently used by our deeds registry offices. There may well be very good reasons why the hon. the Minister has introduced the present system. However, all I should like to do, is to sound a note of caution in this regard.

For the rest, as I have indicated earlier, we are quite happy to accept this legislation. We will not oppose the Second Reading or, for that matter, any other stage of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park has dealt fairly fully with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Hillbrow, but there is one aspect which I should like to touch on briefly. I refer to the plea by the hon. member for Hillbrow that the deeds offices should handle these registrations, too.

There is surely good reason for the decision in this connection. I do not think we have any doubts that it would have been a good system—perhaps it would have been the ideal system—if these registrations had been handled by the same offices, but there are very valid reasons why it cannot be done in that way. I am sure that the problem of staff will be solved. The hon. the Minister and his department will see to it that the necessary staff are trained and that this registration system will be just as efficient as it would have been if it had fallen under our normal deeds offices.

There is an important consideration which we should not lose sight of in this connection, namely the question of the pressure of work in our deeds offices. We must not forget that we had occasion during this very session to look into this aspect during the discussion of the “Justice” vote. That was an occasion for the hon. member for Newton Park to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Justice to remove a sword hanging over the legal profession. I refer to the amendments to sections 15 and 50 of the Deeds Registries Act in 1975. Those amendments were introduced and adopted by the House when the work of the deeds offices was such that it was found necessary to afford them such relief. However, it was a form of relief which would have imposed an almost impossible burden on the legal profession.

We now have the position that the hon. the Minister of Justice made a statement during that discussion that afforded relief, in that he said it was not the intention to implement the amendments of 1975. The fact of the matter is nevertheless that that sword still hangs over the legal profession. It has not yet been finally removed. If we want to look for trouble, we must place such an extra burden on the deeds offices as the hon. member for Hillbrow suggests. I fear that if that were to happen, the danger would become all the greater that the sword could fall, and that as a result of the increased pressure of work on the deeds offices, it would become necessary for the hon. the Minister to implement the 1975 amendments to sections 15 and 50. The other aspects touched upon by the hon. member for Hillbrow, have been answered in full by the hon. member for Newton Park.

It is obvious that today we are dealing with legislation about the merit of which there can be no doubt whatsoever. There could hardly be any difference of opinion about that. This is understandable, because the measure deserves universal acceptance. It is of course the general reaction in the Press on the part of all people who can speak with authority and who have been consulted on the matter, that it is generally welcomed. Admittedly, there was the “yes, but” attitude on the part of some hon. members of the House, for example the hon. member for Houghton and her kindred spirits, who say things like “it only gets us halfway there”. In view of the wide ideological chasm between us, it will of course never be possible for the Government to bring legislation before the House which will fully satisfy them. One finds that a man like Mr. Raymond Ackerman made this significant remark—

That more or less mirrors the general reaction by the private sector and the public in general.

In his announcement earlier, the hon. the Minister, too, was very enthusiastic and he fired our imagination with this legislation, and with good reason. There is surely justification for visions and prospects in the light of what this Bill is going to mean to our Black people. There is justification for having vistas of more beautiful towns for our Black people, of better quality housing, of greater variety and less monotony of building styles. One can expect that there will be more for the eye and that there will be more evidence of personal pride on the part of owners in their homes and gardens etc. It will bring about an improvement in respect of the environment and what is important, is that the people themselves will be able to work at the improvement of their environment. There will be a visible improvement in the quality of life of the inhabitants. One is also justified in having visions of more prosperous communities, and improvements in the quality of life of those people. What is important, is that we should not merely regard this from a residential point of view, but that we should also realize that the doors being opened here and the opportunities being created, are not merely of a residential nature. There will also be new vistas in the business world. This also applies to the general social standards which will improve drastically in due course.

In this measure, we once again have an example of how this Government has ingenious solutions to extraordinary situations. We are dealing here with an extraordinary need, and there was serious reflection to find the solutions to that particular need. I want to endorse what was said by the hon. member for Pretoria West, who congratulated the hon. the Minister, his department and the legal advisers who had worked on this measure, on the final product of their reflection and hard work.

What is important in this connection, is the fact that in principle, this measure is in accordance with the basic political philosophy which lies at the root of the entire policy of the National Party and this Government. Apart from the fact that as a matter of principle, it fits in with the philosophy of the Government, it is also true that ingenious machinery has been created to put this into execution. It follows a pattern which is characteristic of the Government’s ideological legislation during the past 30 years, legislation which has also been consistently applied.

In this connection, I can refer for example to the name of this department, the well-contrived name which the hon. the Minister gave it, or in connection with which, at the least, he took the initiative. I am referring to the fact that the department is called the Department of Plural Relations and Development. It is a well-contrived name, because the task and the function of this department is to help the other nations in our midst to develop to independence and self-determination. The whole object of this department is the emancipation and the unfettering of all those nations. However, for emancipation to succeed and be permanent, it is essential to help the members of those nations to develop into individuals who will be independent in every respect. They have to be independent in spirit, they must be mentally schooled and trained to the maximum of their abilities, they must be made financially independent, and they must have self-respect and pride in everything that is theirs. A measure of this nature helps us, of course, in moving towards the realization of that ideal.

The occupation of a house is recognized as a basic requirement for that process of growth and development. To all the nations, it is the point of departure on the road to that ideal. It is the foundation on which everything must be built. I believe that home ownership is essential for self-respect and a feeling of self-esteem. A stable home life is an essential prerequisite. That, in broad outline, is what the Government is aiming at with regard to the Black nations still in our midst. This measure is yet another instalment of the process which the Government deems necessary to achieve those objectives. It is yet another brick being built into that wall. It is yet another pillar being put up for the strengthening of that proud building project. Generally speaking, those are the benefits and the merits of this legislation.

To move from the general to the specific, I want to point out briefly a few specific benefits of this legislation. We have now looked at the general merits of the matter, but I now want to refer to a few specific benefits. What is very important, is that it will bring greater stability to the life of the Black man while he is in the territory and under the ultimate constitutional jurisdiction of the Republic of South Africa. The possession of fixed property is very important for that particular purpose. This will also contribute vastly towards the essential development of a strong middle class among the Black people. This is already taking place dramatically in respect of our Coloureds and Indians and by this means, the Government is now also making it possible for the Black people to move in that direction. We must keep in mind that the wide difference in the level of development and the economic ability between the governing Whites and the other groups which must be emancipated, has always been a limiting and inhibiting factor in that process.

In future, Black home owners will be able to qualify for other benefits which are, from time to time, made available to White, Coloured and Indian home owners by statute and otherwise. In this connection I have in mind, for example, the Government subsidy on bond interest, which is made available from time to time. Unfortunately the measure which gave the mortgagor the benefit of a subsidy on interest, was recently discontinued. It is a pity that this measure could not have been implemented when that benefit still existed. If that had happened, it would have given this process tremendous momentum. However, the fact of the matter is that if something of this nature is ever again made available to mortgagors, this group, too, will obviously—at least, I hope so—be able to share in it and will be encouraged in that way to avail themselves of this facility which is now being made available to them. It will be a great incentive for prospective home owners under this scheme. It will better enable them to avail themselves of those benefits.

There is a further benefit to the State, namely that the financing of housing for our Black people will no longer be exclusively the responsibility of the State. It will now be possible for that responsibility to be shared to a great extent with the private sector. It will be possible for building societies, financial institutions, industrialists, businessmen and even individual owners, and especially individual employers of non-White labour, to assist with the financing of housing. Another benefit is that the Black people now also have a free choice about the type of home they live in, the size, the outlay and the specifications. They can plan it, have it built or improved, according to their own taste and dictates. It will also be an incentive to them to invest in housing on a larger scale.

A further factor is that we are here giving them the opportunity of acquiring wealth. That is to say, it will make them more aware of the benefits of saving, because buying a house is, par excellence, a form of saving. It is indeed perhaps the most meaningful and most effective form of saving there is. It is a meaningful method of capital formation. Capital formation, in turn, is an essential prerequisite for the development of a strong middle class which we envisage here. Capital is formed and built up around fixed property or immovable property. In this connection, it is also important to point out that it is the declared objective and aim of the Government to make these benefits available to our Black people. This refutes the allegation which is for ever being made that this Government supposedly implements a policy of oppression of the Black people, or that we do not want them to develop to the stage which we ourselves have reached. Another benefit I want to refer to, is the promotion of free enterprise among our Black people. The opportunity for such undertakings will now be given, and I have already pointed out that we should not only think in terms of residential areas, but also in terms of the business world. It will give these people the opportunity of developing their own business undertakings, building business centres, entering commerce on an organized basis, and developing their own entrepreneurship. We shall now see how their own business tycoons develop, and we can even expect to see Black millionaires because there is nothing which stands in their way, since the opportunities have been created. Furthermore, the general quality of life of these people will now be enhanced and a more sophisticated community life will be possible, for example in the field of sport and recreation, amusements, professional life, and similar fields. All the trimmings of civilized city life will be built into this systematically. Stated briefly, these are the benefits, although there are still many more. These are the benefits which have been made available to our Black people through this legislation. All this can serve to convince us that it is a measure which can only be welcomed, because it brings vast benefits to the Black people and will indirectly also give rise to better relations between White and Black in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Algoa has outlined and described the virtues of this Bill. With much of what he has said, I cannot quarrel at all. He did express viewpoints on attitudes on this legislation which were put forward by the hon. member for Hillbrow. He felt that this legislation will cause a burden that the present deeds registration system could not accept. I, too, will be very interested to hear what the hon. the Minister will have to say when it comes to the question of deeds registration. Like the hon. member for Walmer, I will agree that this will have to be looked at very closely indeed. I must admit that I listened with a certain cynicism to the hon. member for Algoa when he talked about this being a development of National Party policy which one could have foreseen 30 years ago. I would say exactly the opposite as this is almost an about-face operation which, I think, can best be described as one of the first major but fumbling steps towards the acceptance of the permanence of the Black man in the so-called White areas of South Africa It is a part of a realization that is finally appearing to come from the NP Government that there is no way at all that they are ever going to create a White State in South Africa which is not dependent to a large degree on Black people for its welfare. The realization is coming to them that Black people are in the towns to stay. We need them and, in fact, the so-called White States in South Africa are already so economically integrated that the process cannot be stopped or reversed. Provision will accordingly have to be made for this. I think they are beginning to realize that it is an accomplished fact that there are already hundreds of thousands of Black people in the towns, and that they are there permanently.

Many other speakers have already expressed this view. On the other hand, there is an unwillingness to accept that the NP Government has been wrong in the past. I believe that a lot of this Bill is just part of the rationalization process instead of just accepting that Blacks will have freehold rights which will be the most sensible and certainly the easiest way of doing things. They retain a technical provision which evidently convinces the NP that leasehold implies no permanence. If 99 years is not considered to be permanent, I do not know what period is. We must say that the Bill is certainly a step forward and that is the reason why we are supporting it. We believe, however, that there are various questions that need answering. Some of these questions have already been put by my colleagues in these benches. The question that I want to put to the hon. the Minister concerns the specific areas where the 99-year leasehold is intended to operate, as outlined in clause 2 of the Bill. From the hon. the Minister’s various pronouncements, it seems clear that the western Cape is not to be included. My question concerns other areas north of the Eiselen line—which the hon. member for Houghton described as not having been created in heaven—and I would be most grateful if the hon. the Minister could tell us his plans for the eastern Cape and, in particular, places like Grahamstown.

As hon. members know, there are many towns in the eastern Cape that have Black townships adjoining them. These Black townships are supposed to be of a temporary nature. Throughout the years the fact that they were supposed to be temporary, has stopped the Government from spending money on improvements, with the result that disgracefully squalid living conditions have been allowed to continue. The justification for this has always been that it is not worth spending money on these townships as these people are going to be moved elsewhere. At least a generation and, in some cases generations, of Black people have already grown up in these temporary townships. It is quite apparent that the finance to move them is not available. It is also quite evident that the finance will not be available for a very long time in the future, and it is my belief that the finance will never be forthcoming. Most of these townships are eventually going to have to be recognized as being permanent. My question to the hon. the Minister is, however, whether he is going to allow 99-year leaseholds in any of these townships or whether he can at least tell us what criteria he is going to use in deciding whether long-term leasehold is going to be made available. I have had inquiries to this effect from places like Grahamstown, Port Alfred, Fort Beaufort and Stutterheim. The people in these areas, who are vitally affected, are extremely anxious to know where they stand and I believe it is a matter of urgency about which the hon. the Minister should make his intentions clear. This is almost life and death to many of the inhabitants of those Black townships.

In many of these townships the 99-year leasehold will allow security of tenure which will obviously result in the improvement of the living conditions there. A fairly immediate improvement will be evident very shortly. People will have the incentive to improve properties, added to the incentives and opportunities flowing from the provisions in this Bill, i.e. the opportunities to obtain loans from building societies for improvements, etc. Not only building societies, but also many employers are keen to invest money in housing loans to their Black employees. They have been inhibited, however, from doing so because there has been no real or adequate security for their loans. This Bill changes the situation. I do feel, however, that the sooner the hon. the Minister decides—if he has not done so already—where he is prepared to allow the 99-year leasehold and the sooner he makes known his decision as to where he is going to allow it, the better it will be for all concerned. People will then be able to plan ahead and get started with property improvement and the improvement of living conditions.

We have had the ridiculous situation—this is where I would quarrel with the hon. member for Algoa—where the Government has in the past taken upon itself the total responsibility for housing the majority of the population and has actually forbidden them from housing themselves. The financial burden on the public exchequer has been intolerable as a result of this. It is therefore sensible and correct that the hon. the Minister is looking for other sources for housing development in order to help deal with the housing problem which the Government can obviously not afford to deal with on its own. All this becomes possible as a result of the provisions of the Bill.

Another aspect that is regrettable to me, is that the Bill should contain certain provisions which endanger the security of tenure for individuals in certain circumstances. The suggested amendment which the hon. the Minister mentioned in his Second Reading speech helps, but it does not go all the way. According to the provisions of the proposed section 6A(11), as inserted by clause 2 of the Bill, it is provided that if a qualified person ceases to be a qualified person under section 10(1)(a) or (b), he can forfeit the right of occupation, although he does retain the right of leasehold. This could affect not only the person who has lost the qualification for one reason or another himself, but also his wife and children. There are many examples which one could give, but I want to mention only one. If a man goes to gaol for a period exceeding six months, he loses his qualification. Why should his sins be visited on his wife and children? Why should they not be allowed to stay?

We disagree with the provision in the Bill which separates the right of occupation from the right of leasehold. Having granted the leasehold right, we believe that as long as the ownership of that leasehold remains with any person, the right of occupation should be part and parcel of that right. We shall move amendments in the Committee Stage to that effect.

We are supporting the Bill, but I think the hon. the Minister must realize that he does not go far enough. As the hon. member for Houghton has said, we believe in a freehold right. If we are to build a happy, stable and contented Black population in our towns and cities it is absolutely imperative that they must have complete security, and in this Bill there is too much hedging. However, we welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction, but we believe that we still have a long way to go before we get to an optimum situation.

In a way, what we are doing is to spend money on a system which we believe is only going to be a temporary system. We believe that inevitably freehold occupation is going to come about. This will mean the end of separate deeds registration and operations in this regard. We are now spending money on setting up systems which will eventually have to be changed.

Lastly, I should like to state that I think the hon. member for Algoa was quite right when he quoted Raymond Ackerman as saying that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have had before the House during this session.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that you will not rule me out of order within the first minute, and that you will grant me a few moments to thank you sincerely for the delightful evening we spent with you on Friday night. [Interjections.] I am speaking on behalf of the NRP, but I am sure that I am also speaking on behalf of every hon. member in the House.

What type of meat did you have?

It was “nice” meat. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, it was a wonderful gesture on your part. I almost had a lump in my throat when we were singing along so nicely. It was really wonderful to see the hon. member for Houghton standing between the two thorns, the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations. I am not quite sure whether it was a case of the thorn between the roses or the rose between the thorns.

She is a “devil’s thorn”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, you missed something later that night, when at about half past eleven, the hon. the Deputy Speaker uttered the Tukkies’ war-cry “Ara rateu”. [Interjections.]

I did go and see Eben Jansen the next day. [Interjections.]

The spirit in which we spent that evening, was really something special. After we had all sung “Lank sal hy lewe” to the hon. the Prime Minister, one of my Nat friends told me that we would shortly be sitting in the same party. I cannot quite agree with that.

Please, you must not cross the floor.

No, I shall not. However, one thing about which our party agrees with the Nationalists, is the fact that we are proud of our Prime Minister. [Interjections.] However, hon. members must not think that we always agree with the hon. the Prime Minister in the political sphere. But we honour our flag, our country, our Prime Minister, and our State President. I think we all agree that we will always honour these things and these people. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that you have allowed me to say these few words. I shall now come to the Bill.

I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that I am not going to make a personal attack on him today as I did the other day. After that speech, of course, the hon. the Minister made a crushing attack on me. Someone told me the other day that a politician should never make excuses, but I do think that in that speech I went altogether too far and I should like to apologize to the hon. the Minister about that. I have learned something from that. In this House, one learns one’s lesson quickly. However, that does not mean that we will not still argue in future. But I do want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am not going to attack him today but that I am going to praise him.

This Bill is a step in the right direction and I want to compliment the hon. the Minister on the direction in which he is now moving. We gladly support this Bill. We also agree with what the hon. the Minister said in a television interview the other night, and I quote—

We all approve of that sentiment. Private home-ownership is something of which we should really all be proud. I think that this pride in home-ownership, which the Blacks are now also going to enjoy, is going to mean a great deal to our country. I am convinced that no normal person will allow others to bum down the house which he possesses. This pride in a home of one’s own will have the result that a family is also going to improve its own home. It will also have the result that a community will start planting trees, beautifying its own town, and looking after its own schools. I hope they will make Soweto the most beautiful town in South Africa.

For the first time, this Bill is going to make it possible for us to build a better type of house for our Blacks. They are now going to enjoy this benefit for the first time in our country. The private sector is also going to make a contribution. They can easily make available funds for the building of houses for Black people, and so relieve the burden on the State a little. I think this is important—the hon. member for Walmer has also pointed that out—because I think the burden which the State has borne for so long, is something which we really cannot afford any longer. Everyone must now make a contribution to alleviate the vast shortage of Black housing.

This Bill entails considerable benefits. Other hon. members have already referred to them.

Then sit down!

Don’t worry, Frank; I still have a few objections to it. I have always advocated private home-ownership for all race groups. For years, the predecessor of the NRP gave a good account of itself in this connection. I am convinced that private home-ownership is a key to permanent peace in South Africa Of course, this goes hand in hand with the standard of living in the cities in respect of health, sport, education and recreation, all of which can now be developed. I have now referred to the positive aspect of this Bill.

We also have reason to criticize this Bill in several respects. In the first place, this Bill should have been introduced years ago. It is a tragic state of affairs that this Bill did not come before the House years ago. The other point of criticism I wish to raise, is that this Bill does not go far enough.

Firstly, I want to discuss the history of this matter and ask why the Government waited so long with the introduction of this Bill. As the hon. the Minister has said, this Bill is absolutely necessary. We all agree with it entirely, but why was this Bill not introduced years ago? The NP and the then Department of Bantu Administration and Development must bear all the blame for that. I do not place the blame on the shoulders of this hon. Minister, but on the shoulders of his predecessors. I am also convinced that if this Bill had been introduced 10 or 15 years ago, Soweto would definitely not have burned. The problems we experienced two years ago, would have been eliminated.

I want to refer to the latest report of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, as it was then still known. I must say that I am very disappointed in this report. I trust it will be the last one which will be so bad. I trust the hon. the Minister will see to it that we have a better report in future.

It is a good report.

It is a tragic report. I am quoting from the English text on page 41, the paragraph relating to housing, which reads—

That was more than 10 years ago. My question is: Why was it suspended? It is tragic.

That is history.

It is history, but we have to refer back to it. The paragraph reads further—

That was when you were still Nat.

That is why I changed my politics. I quote further—

When I put a question to ascertain where the Black people had the right to buy the houses, the hon. the Minister replied. Question No. 507 to the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development was—

The hon. the Minister’s reply was—

That type of reply is not necessary in this House. All the time, we encounter the arrogant attitude by the department, something which we cannot accept.

Paragraph 2 under “Housing” on page 41, reads—

It does not say here what scheme, or how the scheme is going to work—

This has always been the position; they could rent there. But it is not clear from this report that south of the Eiselen Line, they may not buy houses. That is how I read the report. Paragraph 3, on page 41, reads—

I then put question No. 518, which reads—

The reply was—

Then I asked—

The report reads “that there is a tremendous housing backlog”. Then I asked—

The reply was—

These questions did not really concern this legislation, but they were concerned with housing, and we must ascertain what type of housing is necessary. We are putting the question, because we do not know how many houses are short. The hon. the Minister ought really to check the statistics, or his department ought to supply him with better statistics.

What do you want to do with them?

Now that is a ridiculous question. If the hon. the Minister does not have the answers, he must see to it that he obtains them. It is important that these questions should be put to the hon. the Minister and that he should reply to them. I quote further from the report, from paragraph 4 on page 41. It reads like a telegram written by a young Std. 8 boy—

That means that 130 000 people bought these houses within a single year. I then put a further question.

You will again be taught a lesson!

No, we learn our lessons very quickly.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I then put the further question: “What is the number of houses existing in South Africa and in the major cities, and what is the average occupancy of these houses?” I put the question because I wanted to ascertain how many houses there are for these people in South Africa. The reply I received, read as follows—

If a Ministry really does not know how many houses exist, how many are being built and how many are still to be built, then I really don’t know! [Interjections.] I read further from the Report—

I really thought you knew better! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, … [Interjections.] I want to quote further from the Report. [Interjections.]

The Report has already been accepted!

My question is whether I am not entitled to ask these questions. I also asked the hon. the Minister—

I simply put the question as to where we were going to obtain these funds. The reply to that was that it would not be done. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot permit the hon. member to carry on a general discussion in connection with housing for Blacks now. The hon. member must therefore confine himself to the Bill.

I shall do so, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

What did you actually want to say?

What I actually want to say, is that while we support the present legislation, we only want to request the hon. the Minister, in all courtesy, please to check his data and his statistics. His department has no idea whatsoever what they are doing. That is my point. [Interjections.]

I am warning the hon. the Minister that next year we shall again come to him with a whole series of questions. I advise the hon. the Minister to have a look at the Report tabled by the Department of Community Development. It is an excellent Report. All necessary statistics and data are supplied in it I therefore request the hon. the Minister please to use that Report as an example when he compiles his next report.

Say “please” again; perhaps that will help! [Interjections.]

I am pleased that I was at least given the chance to make my point. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, … [Interjections.]

You do not know what you are saying, but your speech is very interesting!

There were quite a few aspects which I still wanted to touch on. The second point of criticism I wish to raise, is that this Bill does not take the matter far enough. I said at the outset that I had no problem as far as the leasehold system was concerned. In my view, it is a good system. But in this measure, there is an element of racial discrimination. That is what causes my problem. [Interjections.] The leasehold system is a good system. We also find it among our Whites and among our Coloured people. In the present case the problem is, however, that the Black man cannot obtain full right of ownership here in South Africa. Why can a German or a Greek enter South Africa—come here as a foreigner—and simply buy a piece of land within a week and build a house on it?

Oh, that is an old story!

It is an old story, but is a true story. [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned, it is a good argument I am advancing. I challenge the hon. member for Maitland to reply to me on this scors. Does he perhaps think it is a poor argument? The Black South African citizen, just because he has a black skin, cannot possess land here. [Interjections.]

Do you want to say that he cannot possess land in the Transkei?

All I am saying, is that this measure is based purely on skin colour. It is unfortunately so. I am sure that it also troubles the hon. the Minister.

No, it does not trouble him!

I think the hon. the Minister … [Interjections.] My next question concerns the section 10 Bantu born in the Cape. Is he going to enjoy the same benefits in the Cape which his counterpart enjoys in the Transvaal? I just want “yes” or “no” in reply to this. How can I, on moral grounds and with honesty, say to such a Black man born in Cape Town that he cannot buy a piece of land or a house here? The Brown man can indeed do it, and the Black man in the Transvaal can do it there. How can we justify that to such a person on moral grounds? I should like to have a reply to that. If I could know that, it will be easier for me to support the Bill. [Interjections.]

I notice from a newspaper report that the hon. the Minister is of the opinion that the Bill will improve our image considerably abroad. My question is whether this will indeed be the case, in view of the minor discrimination embodied in the Bill. I respectfully ask the hon. the Minister how he is going to reply to an American who asks: “Mr. Minister, what about the Black man who wants to buy a house? He was born here and he has lived in Cape Town all his life; why can he not buy that house?” How can the hon. the Minister, or I, reply to such a question?

But surely you know what our policy is.

I am merely putting a question. If the reply had depended on me, I should have said he could buy it.

The Bill will help a lot, but how much better would it not have been if we had been able to say to all that they could buy the piece of land they wanted? That should have been the end of it. It is as simple as that.

I want to conclude by pointing out that we support the Bill. We in South Africa are trying to move away from discrimination. We are very proud of the people who say openly that we are moving away from discrimination. Time and again, too, I hear hon. members opposite say that we are moving away from discrimination. However, the Bill, still contains an element of discrimination. How are we going to convey that to people abroad and to the Black man who tells us that he wants to obtain that piece of land?

Surely you need not do it. We shall do it, where necessary.

With respect, one cannot duck and dive. One has to be either honest or dishonest. There is no alternative. I just cannot see how I can rationalize this aspect. I do not know how that hon. member who comes from Natal can rationalize this.

Mr. Speaker, my first problem with the Bill concerns the temporary or permanent nature of the measure that the hon. the Minister has in mind. If it is a measure that, despite carrying the name of a leasehold of 99 years, is actually going to dwindle away into nothing in practice, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister if this is his real intention. I must say that, after everything that I have heard, I think it is unlikely that it is his intention. My problem originates in section 12 which the House of Assembly amended a few months ago. The question of the independence of the homelands—they will, of course, if the House accepts the proposals, be called Black States—is being co-ordinated with section 10 and by means of section 10, it is also being co-ordinated with the leasehold. If it is in fact the case, as the new section 12(1) seems to mean, that in time there will be no homeland or Black State citizen who may qualify under section 10, it will also mean that no citizen of a Black State will be able to become a leaseholder in future. In other words, as the homelands become independent or are deemed to be independent, and the citizens of those countries therefore all become aliens in the Republic of South Africa, they fall out in terms of section 12, in terms of section 10(1) and similarly in terms of the leasehold system. The hon. member for Houghton has already referred in passing to section 12 which reads—

… a Bantu who is not a South African citizen or who was not a South African citizen before his homeland became independent, may not remain in the prescribed areas. In other words, the 72 hour provision applies to him and under no circumstances can he obtain the right or ever think that he will become a leaseholder. This is my one problem.

The other problem is the linking of the leasehold to section 10. Let us suppose that the hon. the Minister is now going to carry out his expressed intention to amend the definition of “qualified person”, where it applies to section 10. Let us suppose he inserts that in addition to children it may also include grandchildren and descendants. Mention is made, however, of uninterrupted accommodation or uninterrupted service for certain periods. Therefore, if somewhere in the line of those generations there is an interruption—something that may not specifically be anyone’s fault—the right that the descendants will have to at least retain their right of occupation will fall away. Whether they will be able to become leaseholders or not, I do not know because the matter is not clear enough for me yet in that regard. What they will, however, lose, is their right of occupation.

If I am correct in this regard, it means that in terms of section 10 as well there is going to be a thinning out of the group that may be qualified people in terms of the leasehold system. If one therefore has a thinning out of the group from which leaseholders may be drawn, a thinning out as a result of homeland development, and at the same time as well, interruptions in respect of the section 10 group, we will ultimately in actual fact have no one who will be able to become leaseholders—definitely no one who will have the right of occupation even if they are perhaps still able to obtain leasehold title. Of course, this measure is justifiably being welcomed by everyone because we are getting a new dispensation here for security and stability in the Black communities in South Africa. In spite of that, however, this measure will be merely a temporary or a transitional measure.

For how many years?

It may be 10 years, it may be 50 or it may be 99. The fact remains, however, that if it becomes known and is known as a transitional measure, the people will ask: Transition to what? Of course the answer is transition from temporary workers, i.e. migrant labourers, through a period of leasehold and once again back to the old system. This is in essence the problem that I have with the legislation at this stage.

Amendments will be moved, by the hon. the Minister, inter alia, but the question is whether the type of amendment that we have in mind will ever be able to overcome the basic shortcomings of the legislation. I should like to propose that this legislation should be completely separate from any homeland legislation and urban areas legislation. It should be an isolated measure. Whether it is going to be ownership or 99 year leasehold, is a question that does not bother me very much personally. Originally I thought that the two were very similar, but after I had heard the orations of some of the hon. members on the opposite side, I began to doubt whether the two are reconcileable with one another, but I shall leave it at that. Whether the issue is leasehold or ownership, let us rather have a separate measure in this regard. In fact, I can predict now that we will have extended legislation in connection with this subject before us in the House next year, because this Bill does not seem to me to be a thoroughly considered, properly thought out interpretation of what is apparently, at least, the intention of the Government. This measure is of the utmost importance. After the occurrences of the past two years, it is one of the best cures we can think of to put matters on a firm foundation. Must we now make the matter uncertain and vague with irresolution and a toying with meanings and designations? In this regard I associate myself with the previous speaker when he said that we must use this Bill …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he wants the right of leasehold and occupation to be unqualified?

The reply to that is: Definitely not in the present situation. There can be definitions, evaluations and conditions of who may have occupation and who may have leasehold rights, etc. I should say that all these conditions and prescriptions could even be incorporated in this measure as long as it is not linked up with matters that are in fact unrelated, for instance the homeland situation that should be separate from the leasehold system and also, to a large extent, the legal prescriptions that are specially intended for influx control, housing and similar matters. As the previous speaker also said, this measure can relieve the housing shortage to a large extent. I do not know what the potential is in this regard, but there must surely be some potential. I want to suggest that even at this late hour we should still try to state this matter so clearly that it will be acceptable to the people for whom it is intended and will be accepted enthusiastically by them.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I want to put a particular situation to the hon. the Minister. One of the most important things about the legislation before us is the question of whom this legislation will affect and, of course, whom it excludes. Earlier this session I asked the hon. the Minister a number of questions regarding the 99-year leasehold system. I asked, for instance, whether or not it would be applicable in the Cape as well. In response to that the hon. the Minister said that—

i.e. the policy to exclude the Western Cape from this system—

My question across the floor of the House was—

The reply of the Minister was, as I have indicated—

By way of interjection or question I then said—

The Minister replied—

The hon. member for Groote Schuur told the hon. the Minister across the floor that his policy was changing all the time. To this the hon. the Minister replied: “If the policy of my party should change, I shall implement it in a different way.” He said that whatever the policy of his party was, he would implement it. That is fair enough. In his arguments in the Other Place, when similar questions were raised, it seemed that the hon. the Minister was in effect saying that for the moment the policy of the party in the Cape, or of the whole party, was along these lines, namely that the Cape was a preference area for the Brown people and that therefore measures of this nature could not be applied to Bantu in this area.

Without delaying the matter any further, I want to put just one question to the hon. the Minister. I tried to put it to him earlier and I will repeat it. There are Black people living in the Cape. They have been here for a long time. The hon. the Minister made the point that they have not been here as long as the Coloured people, and I will concede that. However, they are here. They are working here, and one of the reasons why they are living and working here is that there are certain jobs which, for one reason or another, the Coloured people will not do. It makes no difference what the reason is, but the fact is that there are Black people living here. It would seem to me that the hon. the Minister has two major motivating points in introducing this legislation, the first of which is that this will bring security, happiness and peace to the township areas. Therefore, by granting this 99-year lease it will improve the internal relationships within South Africa, and we all know that that is vital. That is why we so strongly support this. Is that not equally true for Black people living in the Cape? They are living here, and if this is going to bring security, peace and happiness to Black people living, for example, in Soweto, surely it is going to do exactly the same for those Blacks who are living here. We had problems here, too; those problems were not only confined to other parts of the country. The second point which I think the hon. the Minister is suggesting here is that there are a lot of Black people who want nothing to do with the Black homelands because they have a sense of insecurity. If they do have anything to do with the homelands—if I follow the hon. the Minister’s argument correctly—they will feel that they have even greater insecurity and that they may lose their place. If one can therefore give them leasehold, they will have an even greater concern, link or relationship with their original homeland. I cannot accept that argument, but if the hon. the Minister is going to be consistent, then surely the Blacks living in the Cape will be influenced in exactly the same way in that they, too, having been granted security of tenure, 99-year leasehold, will then have a stronger link or tie with their homeland. I would ask the hon. the Minister to think very carefully before excluding the Western Cape, as is his present policy. If he is unable to do that now, then I would ask him to work within his own party to extend this provision so that Black people, wherever they are, can have this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the end of the Second Reading debate of this Bill, which is apparently supported on all sides, although it took hon. members a very long time to say how they support us.

I want to begin with the approach adopted by the hon. member for Houghton in her speech. She asked who a “qualified person” was. I should like to furnish the hon. member with a reply in this regard without delay. The amendment I want to move means, as I indicated to her, that not just one generation, but also the descendants of such a person, qualify to continue to retain the rights. This is what this means in practice. This is the undertaking, namely that the citizens in South Africa of a homeland which becomes independent will not be worse off than before. It is for that reason that this amendment is being effected. We believe that this will encourage other homelands to become independent as well, and that in this way our policy will be carried out more effectively. This is my standpoint in this regard and this is also what is envisaged by the amendment. If this satisfies the hon. member, we need not debate the matter further.

When the hon. the Minister refers to the descendants, does he mean the second generation and only the second generation, or does this include the subsequent generations as well?

The hon. member was not present when I made my Second Reading speech. In it I explained clearly that it included the descendants for all times.

The hon. member for Houghton said, inter alia, that the position of the Black woman had to be argued. I have a problem in this regard. I know that the hon. member for Houghton is a champion of women’s lib, and I see that she is a champion of men’s lib too, nowadays, since she made a plea for the widowers of female judges. The hon. member realizes that we have difficulty here in the sense that we have to take the traditions of the Black man into account. The customary law of the Black people, their law of inheritance, is a matter over which Black governments have authority. They can amend it if they so wish. I do not believe that our Law Commission ought to go into the matter since it is a traditional law which is traditionally a matter for the Black governments of the Black homelands.

This is therefore one of the matters with which we do not wish to interfere.

The next question the hon. member put to me related to the widows of people who die. Clause 1(d) has been amended specifically with a view to affording the Minister a certain discretion in this regard. The hon. member said that she would knock on my door every day about this. I want to put it very clearly that if a person were not to qualify in their own right, and such a person was the spouse of a person who would in fact have qualified, and they had been there for a few months when the person died, the Minister, whoever he may be, would consider the matter and, depending on the circumstances, for example whether she would be able to afford it, would exercise his discretion in this regard. I imagine that if a married couple had been living in a certain area for 14 years and the woman was five or six months short of qualifying in her own right, it would be humane of the Minister to use his rights in terms of the provisions of clause 1(d) to condone her continued residence there. The hon. member will see that this does not only apply to individuals, but that groups, too, can be condoned by the Minister in this way. The whole aim is that the Minister will be able to give consideration to the so-called heartache cases in that way and that he will be able to take appropriate action. Clause 1(d) vests this power in the Minister. I think the hon. member should rather leave the matter in the hands of the members of the community councils, since it will for the most part be their task to bring such cases to the attention of the Minister. The hon. member need not take these matters upon herself, since there are members of community councils who will certainly take an interest in this and who are in any event the elected leaders of those communities.

The hon. member also said: “We are not in favour of influx control.” The hon. member for Johannesburg North also said this. In the light of that I want to ask the PFP: Does that mean that that party is going to put an end to all forms of influx control if they should come to power? That would mean that any Black man from any area could move to any White area at any time to seek accommodation there or to go and live there …

[Inaudible.]

No. Those hon. members say that they are not in favour of influx control and now I want to know whether they will in fact have some form of control. What form of control is there going to be? The hon. member for Houghton says that she is by no means in favour of influx control.

I did not say that.

I can take it, then, that the White areas can be flooded by Blacks from the homelands, from any undeveloped areas, and that that party will not move a finger in an effort to prevent this or to control the influx. Do hon. members have an idea who will provide the housing in that case, who will provide education, who will provide health services and who will supervise the maintenance of law and order? I can therefore tell the public at large that the PFP is not in favour of any form of influx control and that this will mean that the White, Coloured and Indian areas may be flooded by Blacks from all sides. This is what this amounts to in practice.

What about the influx of Brown people?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not put a question to me. He must reply to my question. My question is: What influx control does that party want? The reply is that they do not want any control. [Interjections.] I shall leave the matter at that.

A moment ago the hon. member for Hillbrow raised the problem of the registration of deeds, inheritance and that kind of thing. He said that this was a very troublesome question because often a Black man has three or four wives and many children. Did I understand him correctly?

Yes.

Very well. Now I ask the hon. member with regard to influx control: Can such a man bring all three of his wives from the homeland? How are those hon. members going to apply influx control in this regard? [Interjections.] Such a provision surely does not apply in only one case; it applies to all cases. [Interjections.]

A further issue raised is that the Bill will make it difficult for homeland leaders to accept independence. I think the amendment I am going to move will provide for that. The hon. member has already been replied to in this specific regard.

The hon. member for Houghton also put a question relating to the money to be provided by building societies and said that financing was not going to be easy. I want to tell the hon. member that while the Bill was being drafted I was in constant consultation with the building societies and their representatives, to such an extent that Mr. Hefer, the president of the Association of Building Societies said in The Argus of 25 May—

In other words, the building societies are satisfied that the Bill has been drafted in consultation with them and that the Bill is to their satisfaction. Let me be very clear about this. It would surely have been futile to have drafted a Bill in the hope that it would be successfully implemented and that there would be money to finance the undertaking, if we had not had the co-operation of the building societies. Then they could very easily have said that they were dissatisfied with the provisions of the Bill and would therefore not make funds available or register bonds. In such a case the legislation would surely have been a dead letter.

Give them the choice and then you will see what they decide.

The fact is that they negotiated with me and accepted the position as it stands at present and they are going to make loans available on the conditions stated in the Bill. They have said that they look forward to the implementation of the Bill so that they can begin to make loans available. I am therefore awaiting a reaction from the building societies and I expect that they will co-operate with us.

I also just want to react briefly to the speech by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West. He advanced a number of very good reasons why the Bill will be to the benefit of the Blacks. He said that the private sector could now be involved in the provision of housing. He went on to advance a few ideas about the possibility that liquidity in the private sector should be assisted by the State by various methods. This is the type of thing that we can deal with, and I shall take it up with the hon. the Minister of Finance. I also like the hon. member’s idea of township establishment and development, rather than the provision of housing as such.

The hon. member for Hillbrow asked me whether the amendment I am going to move meant right of possession as well as occupation. I want to state frankly that it does in fact mean occupation, but that it does not mean right of possession, unless the person qualifies for that in his own right under the residence requirements. Let us have no illusions about that. That is our form of influx control. At the moment I am having community councils elected throughout the country and having powers transferred to them. I am also trying to beautify towns, make the way of life of the people pleasant, etc. My point of departure is clear, viz. that we want to make life as pleasant as possible for the people who qualify to be here by law. However, this point of departure definitely goes hand in hand with influx control, which has to ensure that those who may not be here, are kept away. For those that are here, life must be made as pleasant as possible because this is their home, the place where they live, where they must establish themselves and where they in fact have to earn their living. However, as I have said, influx control is an inflexible requirement, because if I were to relax the influx control measures, the situation would become impossible and we should be overwhelmed. Apparently that is what the Official Opposition would do if they were to come to power. As I have said, the amendment I am going to move does entail right of occupation. However, let me explain this at once. As I am stating it here it is not discrimination. A German or a Frenchman has the right to buy a plot anywhere in South Africa under the laws of our land. To go and live there, however, he must in the first place obtain permission to enter the country. The Department of the Interior exercises control in that regard. Therefore he can possess property but his occupation of the property is subject to the acquisition of a document from the Department of the Interior which gives him admission to the country. Identical requirements apply to the Black man. He can obtain the 99-year leasehold on a property, but whether he occupies it or not depends on whether he qualifies to be in the area in terms of our influx control measures. That must be clear.

But not freehold. That is the difference.

Yes, that is the difference, but it does not matter. Even if he had freehold the same thing could happen.

The second objection the hon. member for Hillbrow raised, relates to the registration of deeds. He wants the deeds to be registered at an ordinary deeds office. He adopts the standpoint that it is a complicated system, that officials will have to be trained for this, that one will have to know the people, etc. Perhaps the hon. member is not aware of this, but the Department of Plural Relations—formerly known as the Department of Bantu Administration and Development—has for years been engaged in the registration of deeds of properties of people in the homelands. We have a whole section equipped specifically for that purpose and employing experts in the field of deeds registration. This section has been in operation for a long time. If anyone obtains a property in the homelands it is registered by a section of the department. Therefore the department already has people with a store of knowledge and experience of the matter. Indeed, I think that from as far back as 1927 the department has had a section that has handled these matters.

That office will be expanded—we already have the practical experience—and other officials will be trained to handle this in that way. Our staff write and have to pass the same examinations as the officials of the Deeds Office. Therefore we can control the deeds offices ourselves because we have the same experience. There need therefore be no fear that we shall have a group of inexperienced people occupying those posts and that confusion will result. The principal argument in favour of our having this registration done by our own officers is the cost aspect. To us this is of decisive importance. For the sake of the Black man we do not want the costs involved in the registration of deeds to be high.

We agree.

Our point of departure is that we can do it most cheaply in this way. This is the chief motivation for the way in which we are doing this. The fact remains, too, that with our co-operation someone can become a registered owner of a registered leasehold in that way.

I want to thank the hon. member for Newton Park for a very interesting speech. One can see that this hon. member is still very enthusiastically concerned with the practical side. My mouth hung open as I listened to him discuss these matters and their practical implementation by putting forward examples. This made it very evident to me that he is still fully in touch with his practice and that he has studied this matter very fully. He made a very positive contribution in all respects. If that hon. member, who is concerned with the practical side of things daily, sees his way clear to accepting this Bill and recommending it, then I am satisfied that it will stand the test of practical implementation. I believe that he knows what he is talking about.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether anyone will be able to prepare the transfer of the bond or whether it will have to be done by a conveyancer?

There is no transfer.

There is no transfer. It is a bond …

Who will prepare the lease and the bond?

This will be laid down by regulation. I shall furnish the hon. member with a full reply to that in the Committee Stage. We are not dealing with the Committee Stage now; we are dealing with the principle.

The hon. member for Mooi River supported the legislation on behalf of his party and also touched on a few aspects. He advanced the argument that by way of the leasehold of 99 years we were going to afford the people far more security in the Black residential areas. I adopt the standpoint, and I want to repeat my argument, that I believe that we had a certain unwillingness among Black people to associate with their Black States, their homelands, because they were afraid to associate openly and to admit openly that they were from a specific homeland and that they retained contact with the chief, the language, or whatever. They were afraid that this might lead to their being endorsed out of the area where they found themselves. They were concerned about their security and they did not want to lose their security in the place where they earned their living. I want to express the idea, and I believe that I will be proved correct in years to come, that due to this leasehold system whereby the Black man obtains more security, he will be far more prepared to associate openly with the homeland he comes from and will be more ready to admit that it is his homeland, because his fear of being endorsed out will disappear as a result of the leasehold of 99 years. It will give him more security. I therefore believe that we will encounter the opposite effect. The system will not urbanize the people more; it will cause them to have a stronger link with their homelands because they will not be afraid of associating with their homelands. That is my point of departure and I believe that I shall be proved right in time.

The hon. member for Pretoria West put it very neatly that Bantu law, which does not normally recognize possession of land, and this system of ours, make a good combination in this legislation. He also said that it would substantially improve the living conditions of the Blacks, that it would entail stability for them and that it would make development possible for all.

I think that he summed up the matter correctly and dealt fully with the previous speaker. The hon. member for Walmer, a man with knowledge of banking and finance, made a number of interesting suggestions in regard to the financing of the scheme. He discussed a 25% guarantee by the State, etc., and I listened to his speech with interest. I shall ask the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Treasury to consider these aspects, and if we can derive anything positive from them we shall in fact use them in order to make a total success of the scheme. The second aspect to which the hon. member referred was that certain individuals were concerned about the registration of deeds, that it was a complicated system, etc. I shall keep a careful eye on the position. We have experienced people and we shall keep an eye on the situation to ensure that matters run smoothly.

The hon. member for Algoa made a very positive contribution and spelt out the advantages of the Bill. He also warned—and I think it is a timely warning—that we should guard against increasing the workload of deeds offices to such an extent that a backlog develops. He also congratulated the officials, as did the hon. member for Pretoria West. On their behalf I want to express my thanks.

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the speech by the hon. member for Algoa and said that he was talking about party policy. The hon. member for Orange Grove should rather say that what we are dealing with here is an upsetting of the NP policy. I think it is necessary that we should at once adopt a standpoint in this regard. Every party has principles and a policy. Principles are unchangeable, principles are things one believes in, things one strives for and tries to achieve, things that one devotes oneself to. The principles of a party do not vary. Policy, on the other hand, consists of the daily utilization of methods in an effort to realize those ideals. Consequently policy has to be changed and adapted from time to time to achieve the realization of one’s principles.

It is a change of policy, but not principle.

It may be a change of policy, but we are not changing our principles. The principle of the NP in regard to this specific subject is that there must be good relations, that there must be good neighbourliness between Black and White. And if this is the policy which should be implemented at the moment in order to achieve this, then this is a change of the policy, but it is not a change of the principle that Black and White must live separately, that Black and White must live in good neighbourliness, and that everything that we do in that regard must bring about improved relations between Black and White. Therefore the principle remains unchanged. There must be separate residential areas with all possible facilities for each in his own residential area, and peaceful coexistence by this means, and good relations on both a personal and a national basis. However, in order that this policy may be carried out it is adapted from time to time in accordance with changed circumstances. To me it is not wrong that the policy of a party should change from time to time, as long as the principles remain unshakeable. It will always be found that the NP will uphold its principles under all conditions.

The hon. member also put a question to me concerning my policy in regard to the Eastern Cape. I shall reply to him on that score and this applies at the same time to the question which the hon. member for Pinelands asked in regard to the Western Cape. Nowhere in the Bill under discussion is provision made for a specific town or region. It is only provided that the Minister will decide from time to time in which areas this measure will apply, and in which it will not. It is a good thing that this should be so.

It could occur that circumstances could vary from time to time, and that the Minister would have to amend his decisions accordingly. This is therefore a matter which cannot be laid down in legislation. It is as well that it should be as it is at present. It is also practical. In the nature of the matter, the Minister will consider every case on merit. Decisions taken as to what will and will not happen, will also be taken according to the merit of each case. Applications, requests and appeals will be received. Each will be considered by the Minister at the appropriate time.

With regard to the broad foundation on which the legislation is based, I just want to make a few statements. In certain areas, for example at Grahamstown, there are people that have had to be resettled due to certain planning that was done. I do not believe it would be wise to allocate the 99-year leasehold to people in regions where the inhabitants have to be resettled, and by so doing afford them security and bind them to the area in question, whereas it is clear that they will have to be resettled at a later stage. Then, too, there are the Black residential areas at Fort Beaufort and Stutterheim. Both are residential areas the inhabitants of which will be resettled in the nearby Black homeland in terms of the present policy. In my opinion it would be stupid to give people a 99-year leasehold in those two areas when it is clear that they will have to be moved to the adjoining homeland, resettled in an area in which, in terms of the policy of the NP, they will have, no leasehold, but right of ownership. Surely this is something which will be of greater benefit to them. I mention these examples merely to illustrate how the system will be implemented. In the regions where it is unnecessary for the Black people to be moved and resettled, the system of 99-year leasehold will in fact be implemented.

As far as the Western Cape is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands— and this is surely very clear—that what the policy of the NP amounts to at the moment is that the area to the west of the Eiselen Line is a preference area for Coloureds and that the leasehold system will not, therefore, be implemented in this region. I am putting this clearly. Hon. members know me. They know that I always speak very clearly and very frankly. This is the policy of the NP at the moment.

At the moment?

Yes. The policy does change from time to time. I am not saying, however, that this policy is going to change. But the principle still stands; the policy is adaptable. [Interjections.] Please just give me the opportunity to finish speaking. This is the point of departure. The reason it is the policy at the moment, is that—although the hon. member maintains that by giving someone a 99-year lease, one gives him a long period of security in the area …

They are here now!

Yes, that is correct. The issue is those who are here, those who stay here, whose presence here is necessary. That is what the argument of the hon. member for Pinelands was about. Very well. Let us take it, however, that the economic conditions in South Africa change—that is something no one can predict—and let us take it that employment opportunities change. The Western Cape is pre-eminently the area in which the Coloured has to work. This is his patria. It is his territory. If, in time, the Coloureds declare themselves prepared to perform certain types of work, work which they are not prepared to do at the moment, then I would regard it as rather absurd to leave the Coloured in the Western Cape unemployed— the Coloured who is here, and who has to be here—whereas Black people are brought from elsewhere for these tasks …

[Inaudible.]

Oh really, just wait a moment, please! The hon. member has already made so many stupid interjections. Will he not please wait until I have finished speaking? As soon as I finish speaking he can put a question to me. Surely that is how debates in this House should be conducted.

My question is, therefore, whether it would be fair to bring Black people here from elsewhere—from hundreds of miles away—to come and live here, to be able to establish themselves here after 15 years and, in their own way, obtain permanent rights here, rights in terms of section 10, and allow the situation to continue, whereas the Western Cape is regarded as a preference area for the Coloureds? At the moment this, among other things, is one of the motivations for the whole system. This is why I say that this is the present policy, and moreover the policy which I shall apply. If the policy changes I shall adapt it, as is required of me from time to time. That is my total and final reply. I shall furnish no reply other than this. That is the position as it stands.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister—not about people who come to the Cape in changing economic circumstances, but about those who are here now, who are here by right—whether he does not agree that they should also be given a chance to be secure and happy?

The existing position is clear. This is a Coloured preference area and if it were not a Coloured preference area I really do not know where else in South Africa there could be a Coloured preference area. We cannot reach agreement in this regard because there is a difference between our points of departure and principles. The policies of our parties differ and I concede at once that we cannot reach agreement. As long as that is the party’s policy I shall carry it out as such. I am here to carry out the party’s policy; not the policy of the Opposition nor anyone else’s policy. That is my task.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South began by being friendly and spoke in lighter vein. He later apologized to me for his conduct earlier. I want to accept his apology at once and tell him that it is a mature person who is able to admit that he was wrong and apologize. I appreciate that and I accept his apology immediately and unconditionally.

Subsequently the hon. member levelled a charge at me that we were arrogant as regards the replies to his questions; that we avoided the questions or failed to reply to them.

The word is “evade”.

Yes, the hon. member states that we evade his questions and do not wish to reply to them. The questions concern information which is not so easily available. Let me mention an example. The hon. member asked how many people lived in houses and how many moved. If I had to reply to that it would mean that we should have to go and count heads in 400 000 dwellings, for there is a day-to-day variation. This is simply physically impossible. What expense it would entail if one were to do this! How does one determine the situation? This evening there are two families in a house, but tomorrow night there is only one. The following night, again, there are two families in that house. To reply to that question we should have to go and count heads in 400 000 houses. I do not believe the expense that would have to be incurred would be justified. Moreover, I do not require that information. I say that in all fairness.

The hon. member also put a question to me concerning the number of houses. There are squatter houses everywhere and I cannot ascertain how many there are. Self-build houses are constructed within the White urban area. Self-build houses are also constructed in the homelands. I do not finance those houses, nor do we have any control over them. Administration boards also build houses. It is therefore impossible to say from day to day how many houses there are in more than 400 places throughout the country. There are innumerable different methods according to which houses are financed and built. Some people settle in squatter houses which they themselves construct. Other people build their own houses, whereas some of them settle in houses built by the Administration Boards. This also occurs every day in the homelands. As far as the homelands are concerned, control does not fall under us but under the homeland Governments. I cannot furnish the information to the hon. member and that is why I said that the reply was not readily available. It really is not available. The Administration Boards could probably gradually start making surveys in their areas but I think there are other priorities greater than the acquisition of this information. I just want to point out that the issue here is not the evasion or dodging of questions; the issue is the practical difficulty of replying to such a question.

You must learn to draft your questions correctly.

I have already replied to the speech by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I think the former judge is having some trouble with the law.

Yes, I am having trouble with it.

If he had read the Bill and listened to the amendments to which I referred in my introductory speech he might not have had so much trouble. The descendant need only be a descendant of a man as described, viz. a qualified person. The applicable section is section 10(1)(a) or (b). This is the qualification he must have. There can be no interruption in the line. Section 10(1)(a) and (b) prescribes an influx control qualification. An interruption in the line will therefore not affect the matter.

May I put my problem to the hon. the Minister by way of a question? My problem is that the child or the descendant will also have to comply with the requirements of section 10.

For right of occupation.

If he does not comply with them he is an unqualified person.

Order! The hon. member should rather take that matter further during the Committee Stage.

Yes, I, too, think that the hon. member should argue that matter further in the Committee Stage. I have already explained that there is a difference between the right of lease and the right of occupation. I put this clearly and I think that this is where the former judge’s problem lies. He may as well discuss the matter further in the Committee Stage.

I want to conclude my reply to the Second Reading debate. I think the legislation entails several advantages, but for the sake of the record, I want to mention a few of them. I believe that if the Bill is taken to its logical conclusion, it will result in greater stability for the Black communities. In the second place, it will create a middle-class house owner who, under normal circumstances, will not be a revolutionary or a terrorist. Usually he is a law-abiding citizen who pursues his activities each day and will improve his property and protect it against anyone who attacks it. It affords protection and creates an established group. Thirdly, employers, for example departments, the Railways, the Police, the prison service, large firms, companies and corporations, can now all provide housing for their own workers with their own funds in terms of this system. In the fourth place, money can be made available by the private sector. From now on the private sector will also be able to make a contribution to housing for our Black people, something which they were not able to do previously. In the fifth place, the Black man is already a thrifty person in many cases. He saves his small sums of money at a building society every month. Now he can register a bond with those same building societies, get some of his own savings back and use it for his own house. Under this specific scheme the Black man can build the quality of house he can afford, and if he can afford a payment of R50 or R70 per month, he can obtain a building society loan which will correspond to that specific amount. He can obtain a plot on which he can get a 99-year lease and he can build a house at a price and of the quality that he can afford. Immediately this will be a source of pride to him. In the seventh place, this will relieve the burden of the State in regard to what has been thus far its sole responsibility, viz. that of accommodating Blacks. Finally, there is the argument I have just mentioned. The 99-year lease will have the result that the Blacks will be more ready to associate with their homelands, so that they will have security and will no longer be afraid of being endorsed out.

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. the Minister please reply to the question I asked him about regulation 1036, the regulation that allows the superintendents arbitrarily to kick them out?

Mr. Speaker, I asked the department to get that specific regulation for me. I shall react to that in the Committee Stage because I do not yet have the necessary information.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I have already motivated this, during the Second Reading debate, and therefore I shall not devote any unnecessary time to it now.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say at once that we are, of course, very pleased about this amendment because it certainly extends the continuity of the leaseholder and his offspring, not simply for one generation, but for several generations. We accept that. Therefore I am not going to move the first amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper. However, I should like to move another amendment, one which is really consequential upon the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister, but which naturally goes a little further than his amendment. I move as amendments—

1. (1) On page 3, in lines 28 and 29, to omit “or (b)” and to substitute “, (b) or (c)”;
2. (2) on page 3, in line 31, to omit “or (b)” and to substitute “, (b) or (c)”;

It really does not go that much further because section 10(1)(c) reads as follows—

1. (c) such Bantu is the wife, unmarried daughter or son under the age at which he would become liable for payment of general tax under the Bantu Taxation and Development Act, 1925 (Act No. 41 of 1925), of any Bantu mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection and after …

and I emphasize this—

That is a fairly limited class of people. It means that those people have come lawfully into the area and have not streamed in from the rural areas, as the hon. the Minister fears they might do. They are the people who have come in under influx control and who are ordinarily resident. In other words, they are not just the tribal wives who might come in for purposes of conception or anything else, such as we are familiar with. It concerns a wife who ordinarily resides with her husband, and children under the age of 18—that is, I believe, the taxpaying age—who have come in ordinarily and who ordinarily reside with their male parent, or with their female parent if the wife is the qualifying leaseholder.

I do not think the hon. the Minister will be stretching the point too much if he in fact includes that class of person. It will mean that everything does not thereafter have to be done by permit. Are we not all sick and tired of all these permits that have to be issued the whole time? This will be a normal right for a normal wife or child who has lawfully entered the area and who is ordinarily resident with the head of the household. I do not think that is too much of a concession to ask from the hon. the Minister. Consequently I have moved the amendment to that effect. All it does is to add paragraph (c) to the paragraphs (a) and (b) already included.

It is very close to my amendment.

Yes, except that the hon. member’s deals with leasehold registration, while I want to tack my amendment on to the hon. the Minister’s amendment in the qualifying clause. That is the reason why I have moved it.

Then, I move the next amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (3) On page 5, in line 6, after “purposes” to insert:

I am as confused as the hon. member for Johannesburg North over the possible conflict between section 12(1) and section 10 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. If one looks at section 12(1), one sees that it provides as follows—

The latter is not relevant here—

If a person cannot be in an area, let alone enter an area, how on earth can such a person acquire any rights under section 10? The child born after independence, i.e. after 26 October in the case of Transkei and 6 December in the case of Bophuthatswana, is not a South African citizen and therefore cannot enter or be in a prescribed area. How can that person then acquire rights of leasehold when by virtue of section 12 that person may not even be in the area? I may have got it wrong, but I would think that, after the Minister’s amendment and with or without my amendment to include paragraph (c), the insertion of the proviso I have suggested would tie the matter up nicely. In other words, since section 12(1) begins with the words “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 10”, I want to make quite sure that the amendments we are adopting to section 10 are not offset by the provisions of section 12.

This is a very complicated piece of legislation and I think the hon. the Minister is going to have trouble with it in the courts of law. Although I am not a lawyer, I have had a lot of experience in interpreting and reading Bills and amendments. I think the hon. the Minister will save himself a lot of trouble by inserting this proviso. He can, of course, put it at the beginning of the provision by amending it to read: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law …”, which is one of those fine umbrella clauses which would have the same effect. I think the hon. the Minister ought to consider this.

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

This amendment has the effect of requesting the hon. the Minister to exercise the discretion which he is taking to declare a class of person as people who will be qualified. I am asking that the people who are in the process of qualifying in terms of section 10(1)(c) of the Act should be regarded as qualified persons for the purpose of occupation. As I understand it the limitations imposed by section 10(1)(a) and (b) restrict people who are in the process of qualifying in terms of section 10(1)(c) from having occupation. They may inherit the right which such person has and for which he has paid or is in the process of paying. However, because they are only in the process of qualification they themselves cannot inherit the right to occupy although they can inherit a right which they can then dispose of in a manner which the hon. the Minister has laid down. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that these people are part of the family life of the person who is acquiring this right. One of the reasons that any person goes out of his way to acquire a right and undertakes the sacrifice that it entails is to ensure that he is there lawfully. He has accordingly undertaken to comply with all the requirements which have been imposed upon him and he has taken the steps which will allow him to qualify within a certain period of time.

If a person who has gone to the trouble of acquiring this right or who was in the process of acquiring this right, should die, the position will be that because of his death the security which he has envisaged for those people, will fall away. I think the hon. the Minister could quite easily accept for the purpose of qualification that people falling within the category mentioned in section 10(1)(c) of the Act should be allowed to continue to qualify until the period of 15 years has expired when they, as qualified persons, would be able to take over the right that the husband or the father or whoever it may be, was in the process of acquiring. I cannot see why this should pose such an enormous problem to the hon. the Minister. It is not a question of the floodgates being opened to enable thousands of people to stream in or anything like that. Those people are there now in terms of section 10(1)(c) of the Act. They have complied with all the lawful steps that have been required of them and they are now in the process of acquiring a right to remain there themselves. The right to remain there themselves would give them, after the qualification period, the right to occupy. I think the hon. the Minister could quite easily afford to accept this amendment or he could declare these people as one of the classes of people who would be able to have occupation as he is entitled to do. This measure is restricted only to the proposed sections 6A and 6B and it does not entail the opening up of section 10(1)(c) of the Act or influx control or anything of that nature. It only relates to the rights given in terms of this Bill in terms of the proposed sections 6A and 6B. I make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider this favourably. I have not quite worked out where the amendments moved by the hon. member for Houghton differ from those I have moved. However, if the hon. the Minister were to accept my amendment he would be serving the purpose that I would like to see this clause serve.

Mr. Chairman, firstly, let me say how important the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton is as it is the aim of this amendment to include those persons who qualify in terms of section 10(1)(c) of the Act. We do not want to perpetuate the situation that we had previously where a woman whose husband has died or who has become divorced, lost her rights to live in a township. It is important to make this a package deal and to include the wife and the descendants of the person mentioned in section 10(1)(c) of the Act. Let us go the whole hog and not cut if off at this stage. It is a very important principle and it is very meaningful to everybody living there. I think it is essential that the hon. the Minister, in his new approach to township life, should accept this principle. The amendment which the hon. the Minister has moved, has now cleared up the position in respect of descendants. It is a very acceptable amendment to this provision. In regard to the hon. member for Mooi River’s amendment, we would prefer it if the hon. member for Houghton’s amendment and the hon. the Minister’s amendment were accepted. Although the hon. member for Mooi River includes section 10(1)(c) in his amendment, he still unfortunately confines himself to the child. He himself will no doubt prefer to have the word “descendant”, because further generations are then affected and the provision is not restricted to the child. If our amendment and the hon. the Minister’s amendment were to be lost, however, we would be left with the amendment of the hon. member for Mooi River, which we would then support. In regard to the hon. member for Houghton’s point in relation to the interpretation, I would say that we are now literally and figuratively tied up in knots. We actually have to deal with triple knots in this regard. One of the knots that we have to deal with, relates to the interpretation of section 12(1) of the principal Act. I believe that if we accept the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton, we shall be untying those knots. If the hon. the Minister accepts our amendment, to include section 10(1)(c), we would be left with the following position: Qualified persons will then be all those within the townships, in terms of section 10(1)(a), (b) and (c) who are not foreign Blacks such as Rhodesians, Moçambiquans or Angolans. They will then be the only people excluded. That is the situation that we should try to create.

I would now like to move the two amendments which appear in my name on the Order paper as follows—

1. (1) On page 3, in line 17, to omit all the words after “which” up to and including “only” in line 19 and to substitute:

1. (2) on page 5, in lines 9 to 11, to omit “appointed in terms of section 6B(2), and includes an assistant of a registrar” and to substitute:

My first amendment brings about an alteration in the definition of “association”. The importance of this amendment can be seen in the wording of the new proposed section 6A(1)(a) as is inserted by clause 2 of the Bill. The provision refers to the granting of a right—

We are not dealing with the residential purposes now, but purely with the business part of it. Why should Africans, who are trading in the townships, be restricted from trading as a company? An association, as we interpret it, is a company in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act. It is therefore the position that an association or a group of a company are those who have the majority of the shares. If, for example, Whites had 5% of the shares of a company trading in Soweto, they would be excluded according to this provision. We want to create a situation where the association is not in fact pegged to a certain group of people. If they want other groups, for example, Indians, Bantu or Whites, to own shares in the company, they will then not be confined in that regard. Our amendment is aimed at giving the term “association” the same meaning as it has in our ordinary law.

The second amendment that I have moved, relates to the registrar of deeds. I certainly do not propose to repeat my entire argument relating to the whole system of deeds registries. My amendment is framed to meet the situation which will arise, should the hon. the Minister see fit to accept the change in the system of deeds registries as envisaged by us. The hon. the Minister has in fact answered the question by saying that there is a system of deeds registries for the homelands. I cannot say this from personal knowledge, but I have been told of considerable delays that take place with that form of registration. I believe, however, that the matter could receive some attention. The question that now arises is: Can they operate a deeds registries system from the various Bantu Commissioners’ offices, as is suggested by the new proposed section 6B(1)(a)? We are therefore basically dealing with the whole issue of registration in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, I want to react to the two amendments of the hon. member for Hillbrow. As regards the hon. member’s first amendment—in respect of the definition of “association”—it is clear that the hon. member means very well, viz. to give the Whites a minority financial interest in order to stimulate the share of the Black people in it. I think it is very commendable intention but in this matter we should follow the wishes of the Black people themselves. We are aware of the fact that at this stage they have themselves taken the initiative by means of organizations like Nafccom and have mobilized capital, and that in co-operation with other White organizations they have established their own development company which will give indirect aid but which will have no direct interest. That makes a big difference. The hon. member has to accept, therefore, that if we do not support his amendment at this stage we are nevertheless keeping our options open so that we can revise the matter at a latter stage, particularly if it becomes apparent that we need White capital to stimulate Black enterprise.

As for the other matter which the hon. member raised, I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister will deal with it.

The amendments of both the hon. member for Mooi River and the hon. member for Houghton amount to their wanting to add section 10(1)(c) of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act of 1974 as a condition for qualification. I want to point out to the hon. member for Houghton that section 10(1)(c) specifically refers to a Bantu who is the wife, unmarried daughter or son of an article 10(1 )(a) and (b) Bantu.

In other words, one has here a double qualification and because it is a derived qualification which a child acquires for example, it is not good legislation to insert paragraph (c) here.

Why not?

But it is so clear. The hon. member said a little while ago that she found these things a bit complicated. Perhaps she could ask someone who does understand it, to explain it to her. It is only logical that it cannot be good legislation for children to receive derived qualification, for example, particularly in view of the hon. the Minister’s further amendment.

[Inaudible.]

Unfortunately I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying, but it remains a fact that it will not be good legislation to insert this provision here, particularly in the light of the hon. Minister’s amendment regarding a child who is a descendant of the Bantu referred to in section 10(1)(a) and (b).

What is more, the hon. member’s amendment could have the effect that the other parts of the provision will carry no weight. The hon. the Minister has built in a discretion here in terms of which he can determine with regard to certain categories of persons or of a person whether such a person will be a qualified person or not. In other words, the hon. member’s amendment will cause duplication and that is completely unnecessary.

I have the same problem with the hon. member’s amendment regarding the provision that she wants to add to neutralize section 12(1) of the Bill—which she says is not quite clear to her—or not to have it implemented. Section 12(1) deals specifically with foreign Blacks born outside the Republic or South West Africa.

No.

It does.

You have forgotten what happens to people when homelands become independent. The children of those people living in Soweto become foreigners and will be subjected to this provision.

But surely the hon. member knows that legislation was passed earlier this year which clearly provides for these rights to remain.

Not for those who were already aligned at the time.

Initially the provisions were applicable to the first generation. By adding the descendants the whole picture is changed however, and therefore section 12(1) is not relevant at all.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer briefly to the amendments moved by the hon. members for Houghton and for Mooi River. I also want to elaborate a little on the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West. If one takes a look at article 10(1)(c), one observes that no Bantu is allowed to remain in a prescribed area for more than 72 hours, unless he can prove that his wife—I shall refer to her again later on—unmarried daughter or son lives there. If we look at the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister, we notice that the daughter and the son have already been catered for. As far as the wife is concerned, the hon. the Minister has pointed out that we have a problem in this regard, because it is a Bantu custom to have more than one wife. This is the position with which we have to contend. In order to solve this problem diverse discretions have been built into section 1(d). With all due respect to the hon. member for Houghton, I want to state that the problem has been solved completely.

The hon. member for Hillbrow’s amendment in respect of associations makes no sense to me. He argues that it could be an association in which the Bantu has a controlling interest, or a body of persons with a majority of Bantu members. If the majority of members are Bantu, it does not necessarily mean that they need have the controlling interest. In other words there could be a majority of Bantu members, but they need not necessarily be in control. If the hon. member perhaps substitutes the word “or” by “and” in his amendment, the amendment will make some sense, but at this stage there is no sense in it at all. Furthermore I want to make it clear that this matter is concerned with influx and occupation. That amendment is not acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bloemfontein West—that great lawyer!—does not know the law. It is not true that the section 10 rights of people who were originally South African citizens and who became Bophuthatswana or Transkei citizens, are protected beyond the lifetime of the people who are alive at the time of independence. Anybody born after that are not South African citizens. Anybody born after …

They are no longer South African citizens at all. [Interjections.]

Section 10 rights are protected as far as people are concerned who have been alive at the time of independence and who have already had section 10(1 )(a) or (b) rights. However, any person born after that date of parents who are now Bophuthatswana or Transkei citizens, are not protected and do not get section 10 rights as they would have done had Transkei or Bophuthatswana not become independent. Therefore the hon. member’s argument is wrong. They become foreigners and are not protected. However, I want to leave it at that.

The hon. the Minister has now extended this provision. If he had retained the original clause, nobody who was born after independence would have been protected. He first gave it to one generation, the child, and now he is giving it to descendants in perpetuity. That is fine.

As far as my suggestion, that we include paragraph (c) in the clause, is concerned, the hon. member for Klip River said that this would be bad in law. I cannot understand that; it is in the law anyway. The only change we are proposing, is that people who have lawfully entered the area, who are ordinarily resident there and are living in those houses under monthly leasehold, should now be allowed to live in those houses under the 99-year leasehold. What is wrong with the law in that case? There is nothing wrong with it. It is a normal extension. I cannot understand what his objection is. However, I have to tell the hon. member who has just sat down that we object to this business of having to go and ask for permits for everything. I do not want the hon. the Minister to have to be bothered—I do not want to bother him, believe me—day in and day out by people with hard luck cases—such as were suggested at Second Reading—people who have been there for 14½ years and have another six months to go before they will qualify under the 15-year proviso, or people who have been working for one employer for 9½% years. That is nonsense. I consider it to be the right of a person who is lawfully married. Marriage means marriage in terms of our law. It does not mean a customary wife, or one of six; it is a wife. That is what has always been intended in all the legislation that we have in South Africa. It is a wife, lawfully married in terms of our law. If the wives have come in lawfully and are living with their husbands and are ordinarily resident here, I cannot see any reason why they have to go cap in hand to the hon. the Minister to ask him to make concessions. Hard-luck cases! That is not the idea It should not be the idea. The idea should be to maintain stable family life wherever possible, in houses that belong to people, because that is the only way that we are going to have a contented urban community in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, as far as clause 1 is concerned, I want to say at once that apart from my own amendment I am not prepared to accept the other amendments. I have considered them. Firstly, after thorough consideration, we are not prepared to include section 10(1)(c) cases. We could deal with those cases under the provision of clause 1(d) of the Bill. It has been thoroughly investigated, but the arguments raised by hon. members, did not convince me. The fact remains that a child of such parents can qualify in his own right. Suppose the man dies and one of his sons is old enough to take up employment. He can then obtain a work permit and qualify in his own right after being employed for 10 years by the same employer and he can also remain there while qualifying under section 10(1)(d). In this manner he can qualify, and as soon as he qualifies in his own right, the matter is solved and disposed of. He can come in on another permit. He can obtain an admission permit from the superintendent and remain there until he qualifies. Surely it is possible.

Therefore I mean hon. members are conjuring up spectres where they do not exist at the moment. I want to add something to that. We also find in practice that where certain powers are granted in an Act, it is very difficult to take those powers away again. Initially, therefore, I should rather grant only those powers which I am prepared to grant. One can rather extend them and subsequently grant more powers if they are justified. I do not want to grant powers which will create problems and which I shall have to withdraw again. It does not work like that. For that reason I am being careful not to grant too many powers. So much for the first part of the amendment.

As far as the hon. member for Hillbrow’s amendment is concerned, I have the problem, and I should like to ask the hon. member to enlighten me, that I am consulting with Nafccom, the chamber of commerce of the Black people, on the question of whether they want White capital in Black areas or not. I do not want to anticipate the decision. We have not reached finality on it yet. There is a difference of opinion. There are various points of view. Therefore I cannot insert things in this legislation in advance which they might ultimately reject and then tell me that I am paternalistically prescribing things to them which they are not prepared to accept. If things work out eventually we can effect amendments. I do not want to anticipate things at this stage.

As far as deeds registration is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member that White and Black areas are included in the area of the Chief Bantu Commissioners’ offices which are scattered all over the country. In each one of them there is a division which deals with registrations. Registrations in the Black areas have been made there for years, depending on the amount of work there is and where it is. Each Black area is allocated a certain office where its registration is to be done. Therefore there is not only one little spot which has all the knowledge concerning this matter. They are scattered all over the country in the various Chief Bantu Commissioners’ offices which have deeds divisions at the moment. As a result we have a nucleus in virtually every area which could be extended. Additional staff can be added where necessary. For that reason I believe that we have the matter under control as far as that aspect is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the documents have to be prepared by a conveyancer?

Not necessarily, but they could.

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Minister to say whether he is prepared to accept the proviso.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I am not prepared to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, apparently there is a difference of opinion between the hon. the Minister and I as regards the interpretation of the provision concerning qualified persons. The qualified person, if he is a descendant, must also be someone who qualifies in terms of section 10. However, the hon. the Minister said in his reply to the Second Reading debate that if someone does not qualify in terms of section 10, he could still be the leaseholder. However, that is in conflict with the provisions of the clause in question. I am referring to the proposed new section 6A(5)(c), which reads as follows—

This is what leasehold means—

This is of course in the case of a descendant. Then the proviso follows, however—

That is in terms of section 10—

Therefore, what I mean is this. As I understand the two provisions, when I read them in conjunction with one another, someone who loses his right of occupation, cannot retain the right to continue to be a leaseholder. If he is unqualified, the leasehold title will have to be sold and he will receive the cash proceeds. That is how I read it, and that is the problem which I experience with regard to this particular clause.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make quite sure of the hon. the Minister’s approach to my amendment. According to the hon. member for Pretoria West the daughter and the son of the person affected are included in terms of the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister. I think that is what he said. It is, therefore, a question now of the wives of people, wives who are in the process of qualification in terms of section 10(1)(c). The hon. the Minister is taking powers in this …

The son and the daughter will have to comply in terms of the provisions of this clause.

Quite right!

Well, that makes it even worse. What the hon. the Minister is doing, is to disqualify group of people who have gone through all the requirements of the law, a group of people who have satisfied all the requirements of the law—it is difficult enough to do that, but they have done that— and who are in the process of qualification. By this amendment the hon. the Minister is disqualifying them. What he is doing, is to make it possible for other people, people from outside, people who have taken none of the steps necessary in terms of section 10(1)(c), to occupy by way of a permit. I simply cannot see the logic of what the hon. the Minister is doing. Surely, it will be easier to say that people who qualify in terms of section 10(1)(c) should be allowed to continue to occupy until they are entitled to occupy in their own right. I am afraid I do not see the logic of what the hon. the Minister is trying to do.

Mr. Chairman, I simply cannot follow the arguments of the hon. member for Mooi River. I find it difficult to understand his argument. The fact remains, however—and I repeat it— that there are numerous ways in which people can lawfully be in a particular area. A person may for example, acquire a visitor’s permit for a period of 14 days. In that way he may lawfully stay in that area for 14 days. One can obtain a permit to work there and in terms of the permit one can work there for 10 years, and then one qualifies in terms of section 10(1)(d). All these things are possible and consequently I do not really understand what the hon. member’s problem is. The fact remains that I do not want to extend the legislation any further than it is at the moment. As is envisaged in the legislation, people may qualify in terms of a permit if they have been there for the prescribed period. If they qualify for it, they may of course take over the leasehold. Therefore they may qualify while they are resident there; while lawfully living there in terms of the permit. As their father qualifies, they may qualify in the same way. I do not believe there could be any misunderstanding about this.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister tell me whether I am wrong in thinking that it is only the people who are there already who can continue until they have qualified in terms of section 10(1)(b)? In other words, nobody new is allowed to come in to start qualifying.

If he obtains a permit…

How many permits does the hon. the Minister think will be given? None, absolutely none! That is so because that situation was frozen. It was frozen round about 1968. Nobody new was allowed to come in to start qualifying. That was the whole argument about the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill of that particular year. Perhaps I have the year wrong, but in any case it was in the late 1960s. Nobody new was allowed to come in to start qualifying. Those who were there already were allowed to continue and to qualify, but nobody new was allowed to come in.

Do you know about the Appellate Division decision of a few weeks ago?

One or two permits have gone through, but they are really negligible in number.

While I am on my feet about numbers, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that it is extremely difficult to get a section 10(1)(c) permit, let alone anything else. It is extremely difficult for a woman to get permission to reside lawfully with her husband in the urban areas if she herself does not qualify in terms of section 10(1)(a) or (b). One cannot become a resident if one has not been there in the first instance. I hope hon. members follow what I mean. One has to get in lawfully to start with and then one has to be ordinarily resident. I do not know which comes first: The chicken or the egg. However, this much I do know from experience with these wretched women who have been trying to qualify: It is the most difficult thing in the world to become a section 10(1)(c) African. All I am asking is that the hon. the Minister should allow those few people who have managed to qualify to enjoy the right of leasehold in the event of their husbands dying and leaving them in the house in which they normally live, lawfully having come into the urban area. It is extremely difficult to become a section 10(1)(c) African; that I can assure the hon. the Minister. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister is so unreasonable.

Mr.

Chairman, I am not being unreasonable.

You are.

The hon. member has just said that she would be knocking at my door every day in order to bring those section 10(1)(c) cases to my attention, but now she is saying that there will only be a few cases. [Interjections.] Now she is saying that there will only be a few, but half an hour ago she said she would be knocking at my door every day so that I could deal with section 10(1)(c) cases. Surely these two statements cannot both be true. I have stated my point of view very clearly. As the legislation reads at present, the section 10(1)(c) cases are not included. As I explained, such a person can, under normal circumstances, qualify in due course. I am afraid I cannot argue this matter any further.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. A. B. Widman negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

On amendment moved by Mr. W. M. Sutton,

Question put: That the words “in relation to a right of leasehold, means a Bantu referred to in section 10(1)(a)” stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—102: Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, S. P.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; 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); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.

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

Noes—21: Basson, J. D. du P.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. W. B. Page and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

On amendment (1) moved by Mrs. H. Suzman,

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—102: Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, S. P.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Janson, J.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.

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

Noes—21: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; 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.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and A. B. Widman.

Question affirmed and amendment, with amendment (2) moved by Mrs. H. Suzman, dropped.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Plural Relations and Development agreed to.

Amendment (3) moved by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. A. B. Widman negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the following amendment as I gave notice of it during the Second Reading—

I think the amendment speaks for itself and therefore it is not necessary to explain it. It concerns the fact that a Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court should have authority over a Bantu and that, in the circumstances, a White man should not be concerned with this.

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

1. (1) On page 5, in line 23, after “may” to insert:

1. (2) on page 5, in line 40, to omit “church” and to substitute “religious”;
2. (3) on page 7, in lines 60 to 62, to omit “only the net proceeds of any sale of the right shall be transferred to such person” and to substitute:

In terms of the first amendment the words “and shall if the Minister so directs” have to be inserted after the word “may” where it appears in the second line of the proposed section 6A(1)(a). The intention is that the Bantu Affairs Administration Board should not have the only jurisdiction and this will ensure that the hon. the Minister’s jurisdiction will be retained in this matter. In practice it may be true that the hon. the Minister does indeed have the authority, but we want to ensure that this is so.

The second amendment is aimed at omitting the word “church” where it appears in the proposed section 6A(1)(b) and substituting the word “religious”. We are experiencing problems with regard to the concept “church”, for this concept is not defined. There may be women’s organizations of a religious nature and there may also be youth organizations of a religious nature. These organizations do not necessarily have to be part of a church, nor can they be regarded as a church. We should like to see these organizations also being afforded the opportunity to have a meeting place should they desire it. What the third amendment amounts to is that we are inserting the provisions of section 10(1)(c) of the Act, or at any rate, the same concept as the one set out in that section. The hon. the Minister has already rejected the principle, but I move it nevertheless. The other problem which I have already raised earlier, is that there should be certainty in this section that where someone does not have a right of occupation and does not have the right to become a leaseholder in terms of the present legislation, he can nevertheless obtain such a right and can retain all rights of title enjoyed by his predecessor. In other respects the amendment I have moved is self-explanatory and therefore the question is only whether the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accepting the amendments.

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

1. (1) On page 7, in line 63, after “sale” to insert:

1. (2) on page 9, in lines 53 and 54, to omit “of the Deeds Registries Act, 1937 (Act No. 47 of 1937), or”;
2. (3) on page 9, after line 58, to insert:

1. (9) The provisions of the Deeds Registries Act, 1937 (Act No. 47 of 1937), shall apply to the registration, cancellation, transfer and other related matters pertaining to a right of leasehold only in so far as those provisions do not conflict with the provisions of this Act.
2. (4) on page 11, in lines 5 to 58, to omit the proposed section 6B.

Firstly, I shall address the Committee in regard to amendment (1). The purpose of this amendment is as follows: When we deal with the proposed section 6A(5) we are determining what is going to happen to a person who has the right of occupation and who may do certain things which are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). For example, in terms of paragraph (c) he has the right to dispose of the right of resale to any qualified person.

There is also a proviso to the effect that where such right is bequeathed to or devolves upon a person who is not qualified to hold the right, only the net proceeds of the sale shall be transferred to such person. In other words, where someone is not a qualified person and has inherited, he cannot occupy, but he may on a sale obtain the net proceeds of such sale. When we come to the amendment which deals with the proposed section 6A(5)(c), we have the situation that property has devolved upon an heir who is not a qualified person and who therefore cannot sell the property, for example, because there may be no buyer. Therefore, he cannot get the net proceeds to do anything with it. Therefore, in the next subsection, subsection (6), we are dealing with the situation where a right of leasehold is offered for sale at a sale in execution or insolvency, etc. The mortgagee may then have the right to buy the property.

The purpose of the amendment is therefore to ensure that where a right of leasehold is offered for sale, as a result of such right having been bequeathed to or devolved upon a person who is not a qualified person, a situation like that can be dealt with.

My other amendments, i.e. Nos. (2), (3) and (4), again relate to the whole question of deeds registries. I shall not repeat my argument in relation to the deeds registries, but in the light of what the hon. the Minister has said up to now, am I to understand that the registration of deeds will take place in the Bantu Commissioners’ offices situated in the various cities and towns? Will new offices have to be created for the registration of deeds to take place in various towns and cities? Does the existing office have enough staff to lend some of its staff to other offices if other offices have to be opened in order to cope with the work? What I actually want to know is whether the department can administratively cope with the situation. I would also like to get clarity in regard to the question of the conveyancers once more, because I think the hon. the Minister should, at some stage or another, make up his mind as to whether he is going to allow conveyancers to do their preparation or not. I would suggest to him that if this is to be a proper deeds registry and if he wants the documents properly drawn up and properly handled and if he wants to retain the confidence of both the people who own the property and of the institution who lends the money, the documents should be properly drawn up by conveyancers.

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

The amendment deals with the new proposed section 6A(6)(c) which relates to the powers of the administration board. The problem that I have in this regard, is to guarantee the rights of mortgagees in cases where the board is given a discretion. In terms of this provision the board—

Paragraph (b) reads—

The board has a discretion to do certain things referred to in paragraph (b). It may “purchase from, or sell to a qualified person on behalf of, a mortgagee …” What happens if, during the prescribed period, the mortgagee is unable to dispose of or to let the right that he has acquired as a result of the insolvency or the liquidation of the person concerned? I really want to know whether the prescribed period will be long enough and whether it will be possible to extend it in order that a mortgagee should be covered if he is unable to find somebody to occupy the property on which he has made a loan, in the event of, for instance, hard times or civil disturbances. The board has access either to State funds or to semi-State funds with which they can purchase the property, care for it and look after it. A mortgagee does not have access to such a property which is situated in a Black urban area The board might also, in its discretion, be able to let the property to an unqualified person for a temporary period. In this regard I am thinking of some of the people the hon. the Minister has referred to, people who need a permit to occupy property in that area. The right of the mortgagee ought to be protected and I believe it can be done in the way that I have suggested.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment which appears in the name of the hon. member for Orange Grove on the Order Paper, as follows—

The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the damage done by the existing clause when a person ceases to be a qualified person and thereby forfeits the right of occupation, though retaining the right of leasehold. I am not referring to an association, but to an individual. How can such a person lose a right under section 10(1)(a) or (b)? Section 10(1 )(a) refers to a person who has—

So, in terms of this provision, one can lose one’s right if one is not continuously in the area. One may be called away, or may have spent certain months elsewhere. One is then in danger and may very well lose one’s right in terms of section 10(1)(a), because continuous means without a break. Section 10(1)(b) provides that if one leaves one’s employer for whom one has been working for just less than 10 years for a couple of months and goes back to complete the 10 years, one may in fact lose one’s qualification. Equally, it provides that if one breaks one’s 15 years’ service for one employer and one has not resided continuously in the urban area, one could also lose that right. There is also a third reason why one could lose one’s qualification in terms of section 10(1)(b), i.e. if one has been sentenced to a fine exceeding R100 or to imprisonment for a period exceeding six months. I am glad to see that the hon. the Minister has in clause 3 increased the maximum fine to R500. This is a decided improvement, and we are very pleased about it. However, the period of imprisonment is left at a period exceeding six months and I think this is very unfair. If somebody goes to prison for a period exceeding six months, I feel he has already been punished by a court of law for whatever crime he has committed. He has gone to gaol for it. Why should the hon. the Minister take it upon himself now to impose additional punishment by not allowing that person to exercise the right of occupation by way of a 99-year lease? I think it is very unfair indeed. This is grossly discriminatory. One does not give White people additional punishment as far as occupation of property or anything like that is concerned, if they have gone to gaol for a period exceeding six months or have been sentenced to a fine exceeding R500. That is already a punishment and it should be sufficient. We have therefore moved an amendment which will have the effect that such a punishment will not be imposed.

Mr. Chairman, I too have considered all these amendments and now want to react briefly to them. With his first amendment the hon. member for Johannesburg North seeks to give the Minister the power to enforce certain things. The bodies on which he wants to enforce this, are the administration boards. Therefore the hon. member assumes a conflict between the Minister and the administration boards, and wants to place the Minister in the position where he can enforce certain things. The fact is, however, that the Minister grants the powers to the administration boards and he also appoints the people. I cannot see myself in a position where there could be such a conflict between the Minister and the administration boards, the people he himself appoints, or that it would be necessary for the Minister to assume powers to compel them to do something, and therefore I think it is unnecessary to accept this amendment.

In his second amendment the hon. member moves that “religious” be substituted for “church”. I cannot accept this amendment either. The hon. member’s argument was that women’s or youth associations, etc., do not necessarily constitute a church. A women’s association which is associated with a church society, will surely not have separate premises for their activities, and will probably carry on their activities on the church premises. The church youth association will surely also operate on the church premises or other premises of the church. There is another aspect that worries me, i.e. the fact that practically anything on earth is known as “religion” today.

Sensitivity training is a religion, Scientology is a religion, and even communism is regarded as religion by certain people. Therefore I am afraid that should I introduce the word “religious” here, it will throw the matter so wide open that eventually I shall have no control of any nature. [Interjections.] Therefore I prefer the concept “church” as it appears in the Bill at present and I should like to retain it as such.

As far as the hon. member’s third argument is concerned, I need not argue. This concerns the inclusion of people who are classified in section 10(1)(c) and we have already cleared up this aspect during the discussion on the previous clause. As far as I am concerned, the provision can remain as it is and I do not wish to argue the matter any further.

The hon. member for Hillbrow mentioned specific cases and problems. He must of course take into consideration the fact that these people were not given a court sentence and therefore there is no court debt as in the case for which provision was made. Nor are there any legal costs, for this is a normal, personal dispute. It can be an estate, etc., and as hon. members know, an estate can drag on for years. There are numerous problems in this regard. There is in fact no compulsion, for there is time to arrange the sales and dispose of the other aspects. The amendment does not fit into the rest of the clause. The rest of the clause deals with court sentences, legal costs, etc., and a measure of compulsion is involved here. Here we are dealing with a voluntary seller and therefore I cannot accept this amendment either.

The hon. member put a question to me with regard to the staff in the deeds registries. I want to say immediately that we do not have enough staff to man all the offices immediately if the scheme is working so well. In fact I hope that it will work so well that we shall need additional staff. However, whether it will be the case with us or in the actual deeds registry, additional staff will be necessary for this massive job, when it comes—and we expect that it will come. The training of those people is already in progress.

Finally, I want to refer to the question of purchase. I want to point out that these people will be treated much better than the normal mortgagee. If a normal mortgagee falls behind for some reason, he has to sell and take the price he can get. Here such a person is, in the first place, given the right himself to purchase, to retain the property for a period of time and then to try and let or sell it. This period can also be extended should a motivated application be made in this regard. During that period the property can still be sold. In other words, we are actually treating such a person better than the normal mortgagee in normal circumstances. It stands to reason that there can be much flexibility in this regard.

The hon. member for Mooi River, instead of wanting to give the administration board an option, wants to compel them to purchase the property. I want to say at once that one must be realistic. If one or two premises are involved, one can say that they should purchase them, but there are administration boards that have ten or more community councils in their areas. In the areas of each of these boards there can be a number of properties that would become involved. Therefore the whole matter could in the course of time assume such proportions that the administration board simply will not have the necessary funds to purchase all those properties. Such an administration board will, in any case, not budget for something like this. Therefore, against this background, I do not want to make it compulsory. We are flexible in the sense that the owner can purchase it and retain it for a period of time. There are all kinds of concessions which can be made. Therefore I do not want to compel the administration boards to spend large amounts of money for which they have not budgeted. However, I want to say once again that we have to see how this legislation works in practice. Should problems arise, we shall make the necessary adjustments.

But will you admit that a problem exists in this regard?

There is a possible bottleneck, but we shall be watching the situation.

If I understood the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton correctly, it concerns someone who forfeits his rights when he becomes a criminal. He can also forfeit his rights by going away for a long period of time and working in another area. The hon. member says that a few cases are involved here. She also talks of a person who is still not qualified. When someone is appointed in such circumstances, it does not go without saying that he is declared unqualified. The Bantu Affairs Commissioner still has to declare him unqualified. There may be arguments as to why he may not be found unqualified. In other words, there is still a discretion in this regard. As the position is now, I think there is enough room for flexibility and humanitarian action. Therefore I do not think it is necessary to accept this amendment. I am therefore in a position where once again I cannot accept any of the amendments.

Will you perhaps accept an amendment to clause 3 later, increasing not only the fine but also the period of imprisonment? Come on! Do something for me! [Interjections.]

Sir, the original provision provided for R100 or six months. We then increased R100 to R500 as a result of the depreciation of money and other reasons. However, six months remain six months; this did not depreciate. The period remains the same. The amount was increased to R500 as a result of the depreciation in the value of money, but days have not depreciated; they are still as long as they were before. In addition, I want to say that our courts are becoming more accommodating in respect of these people. We want to rehabilitate, rather than punish them. This is a new trend in the legal system in South Africa and in all countries. Therefore a few years ago a conviction of six months was a much lighter sentence than it is today. Therefore my point of departure is that because the value of money has depreciated, the amount of R100 has been increased to R500. The period of six months of a few years ago however, is still six months today.

May I just point out to the hon. the Minister that the consequences are greater now. You do not now only lose the right to be in your monthly leasehold house; you are now going to lose the right of occupation of your 99-year lease house. That is a much tougher consequence. I therefore appeal to the Minister to make the period 12 months.

Sir, the hon. member is now trying to negotiate about this across the floor of the House, but why is someone convicted to six months imprisonment, without the option of a fine? A serious offence is involved when this is imposed. Usually a person is sentenced to a month or so, but when a penalty of six months without the option of a fine is inflicted, it means that it was a serious offence. I have given the matter due consideration, and I am sorry, but I cannot change my standpoint in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, there are two points I should like to raise briefly. In connection with my first amendment, we are dealing with the question of a qualified person. A qualified person can now obtain a 99-year lease and a qualified person can, in terms of subsection (5), obtain certain rights. For example, there is the right to erect, the right to rebuild, the right to take a bond, and a right to dispose of leasehold. We now have a situation where a person who is not a qualified person has inherited the leasehold. What right does that person have? In terms of paragraph (c) he has only one right, and that is to obtain the proceeds of the sale of that particular property. That is the only right that he has.

He can let it for all time.

That is just what I want to know. Is the Minister quite sure? My interpretation—and I would be very pleased if I were to be proved wrong—is that these rights are only being given to qualified persons …

The estate can let it for as long as he lives.

But is the estate a qualified person?

The estate still has all the rights of the previous occupier, the previous owner.

But that estate has to be wound up, and it has to be devolved according to a will or the law of intestate succession. So you see, Sir, it cannot last for long. I think I am right in saying that the person who has inherited and who is not a qualified person enjoys none of the rights mentioned here, not even the right to let the property. He is entitled only to receive the proceeds of the sale. Then one is left with this question: What happens if you cannot sell? That person will then have to pay stand licences, rent, etc. I feel that there is a gap here which has not been covered.

There is one final point I wish to make on the whole question of deeds registries. I sincerely believe that if one were to give a free choice to the building societies today, as to whether they would prefer to have property registered in the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s office or in a deeds registry, they would unequivocally choose the deeds registries of South Africa.

At what cost?

I have dealt with the cost. Stamp duties have been exempted and as you will know, Mr. Chairman, the greatest expense in relation to conveyancing for any bond is the cost of the stamp. Once you have done away with the stamp, a very nominal charge remains. As I have said earlier, we are prepared to support an amendment to the Deeds Registries Act to provide for a nominal charge for this registration.

Mr. Chairman, in relation to the amendment I moved to the proposed new section 6A(6)(c), the hon. the Minister said he was not prepared to make it obligatory for these boards to acquire the properties mentioned. Let us just imagine that a building society, or several building societies, have lent money and that a number of houses have been built, houses of which they cannot dispose now. They cannot sell those houses, they cannot let them …

Why not?

For whatever reason. Let us accept that this can happen.

The reason may be one of civil disturbance, or any such reason. There may be a loss of confidence among the people in a particular area. There is now a prescribed period within which one thing or another has to be done. The people concerned must either dispose of those houses, because the heir of the person who took up the bond was not qualified, or somebody has gone insolvent. Anyway, something has happened. Now, the building society, the mortgagor, faces the situation that something has to be done with the property concerned. If nothing can be done within the prescribed period, is there a provision enabling the board to extend that period, or to do anything which will satisfy people that the board will cover that particular point?

Mr. Chairman, the answer is “yes”.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. J. F. Marais negatived.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. J. F. Marais negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

On amendment (3) moved by Mr. J. F. Marais,

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—99: Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, S. P.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Janson, J.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.

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

Noes—20: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and A. B. Widman.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. A. B. Widman negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. W. M. Sutton negatived.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. A. B. Widman negatived and amendment (3) dropped.

On amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman,

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—99: Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; Du Plessis, P. T. C; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Janson, J.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; 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. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg);Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; (Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.

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

Noes—20: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.;Eglin, C. W.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and A. B. Widman.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment (4) moved by Mr. A. B. Widman negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by the Minister of Plural Relations and Development agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

I know the hon. the Minister has already stated in advance that he would not accept my amendment, but I would nevertheless like to have it on record. I think it is grossly unfair that a person should be penalized after coming out of gaol having served a sentence or having been fined. I would like to bring the first sentence into more reasonable perspective vis-à-vis the change in the fine. What I want to move is the following—

In other words, I want to substitute 12 months for six months. I am told by my legal colleagues on these benches that one can get a sentence of over six months for a comparatively minor second offence. In other words, if one is caught driving a car under the influence, one can get sentenced to gaol for more than six months if it is a second offence. The same applies to theft, even of a fairly minor kind. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister remembers reading a case quite recently where somebody was caught stealing cakes and was sent to gaol for two years. I am prepared to admit that that was probably not the first offence. All I am saying is that after coming out of gaol and then to find that you lose the right of occupying a 99-year leasehold house, is grossly unfair. There was a well-known man in my own constituency who went to gaol for a long period for fraud and he came out of gaol and he went back into the large mansion that he owned in my constituency. There was no additional penalty on him. I think to make this sort of discriminatory penalty applied to Black people, is something that we should be moving away from. What I am asking the hon. the Minister to do, since I cannot get the clause repealed, is at least to increase the gravity of the offence in order to bring it more in line with the grave consequences of having gone to gaol, in other words of losing your right to occupy a 99-year leasehold house.

Mr. Speaker, I have already argued the case, and my argument remains the same. The R100 was increased to R500 because we are of the opinion that, as a result of the depreciation of money, R500 is a far more realistic amount. At the same time it is true—this is not a story, but the truth—that our legal practice has developed during the past couple of years in such a way that one can no longer impose such heavy penalties quite as easily. A penalty of six months is for a really serious offence. The whole purpose of this provision, as printed in the original Act, was to keep undesirable people out of the area or to be able to send them back should it be necessary. This was the aim right from the outset. Although I can understand the hon. member’s arguments, and although she bases her arguments on humanitarian principles, I cannot accept her amendment, for the reasons I have advanced.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I see very little reason to rehash all the arguments we have had during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage. On behalf of these benches I simply want to say that we shall vote for the Third Reading because we do believe that the Bill offers a measure of security and stability to our urban Black population, something which we have been pressing for for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, it has become one of the odd occurrences in the proceedings in this Parliament that when one supports a Bill one seems to talk an awful lot more than when one opposes it. But the hon. the Minister to my mind ought to be pleased because at least hon. members on this side of the House are taking an immense interest in his Bill and are trying to improve it where they think improvements are necessary and possible. As far as my party is concerned, I want to record the fact that we have tried this afternoon to add into the Bill the sort of thing which we considered would have improved it and made it more effective in achieving the objects the hon. the Minister is trying to achieve.

So, while supporting the Bill also at Third Reading, I should like to say that this measure has created a considerable amount of interest, and from now on the Minister and his department are going to be watched very closely as to how this is going to work in all its aspects. All I want to say in closing is that we wish it well in its application in practice.

Mr.Speaker, nothing much remains for me to say. I accept that hon. members of the Opposition parties really tried during the Committee Stage to improve the legislation in terms of their best convictions. Some of these amendments were, however, in the spirit of their particular policies and views. This differs, however, from our political viewpoints, and therefore I was unable to accept them.

However, I thank hon. members for their co-operation and for their efforts to improve the legislation. I moved certain amendments myself which, to my mind, improve the legislation, and which found favour opposite. I look forward to seeing this legislation implemented in practice. I hope that there will be much progress as a result of its implementation and that this will usher in a new era for our Black people, and that they will have greater security in the areas where they live by acquiring a real interest in their homes so that they will see to it, as a proud community, that everything will go well in future.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I hope that I will receive the same support for this piece of legislation that I received for the previous legislation. This is just as good a Bill, in fact, in certain respects it is probably better.

†The Bill deals mainly with two matters of importance, namely the systematic replacement of reference books by documents issued by the Black States concerned to their citizens, and the change of the names of institutions, designations and titles as well as the substitution of the word “Black” for the word “Bantu” in legislation.

The first matter being dealt with in this Bill relates to the issue of documents of identification by the Governments of Black States. During discussions which Chief Ministers of Black States had with the Prime Minister and my predecessor during January 1975, it was decided that a joint investigation into existing methods of personal documentation and influx control would be conducted. Three of the Chief Ministers of Black States were represented on the committee, and after investigations and discussions with officials of my department the decisions of the committee were formulated.

These decisions relate to the matters referred to earlier and call for the amendments contained in this Bill as well as amendments to labour regulations which are at present still receiving attention.

The Government intends approaching the State President to grant the power to Black Governments in this country to legislate on the issue of documents of identification to citizens of their respective States. Provided such document serves as a proper identification of the bearer, it will replace the reference book for all purposes. Obviously, if this is the case, it will be necessary to endorse authorizations in connection with influx, housing and employment in such documents.

The last matter dealt with in the Bill relates to the change of the names of the department and certain offices announced earlier on in this session. Those changes and the proposed change of the word “Bantu” in legislation necessitated the changing of the names and titles of other institutions and laws.

In discussions which I had with various Black leaders, they were unanimous in their request to be referred to as “Blacks” rather than “Bantu”, and the Government decided to oblige as the Blacks find the word “Bantu” offensive.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. the Minister, but he will not have the same co-operation on this Bill as he had on the previous Bill. We on this side of the House are going to oppose this Bill for a number of reasons, which I should perhaps list at the outset of my remarks.

We will oppose it in the first place because it creates another type of reference book for Blacks and does in no way alleviate the harshness of the operation of influx control in South Africa. In the second place we will oppose it because it seeks to shift the responsibility for the issue of reference books, which regulate and restrict the movement of Blacks in South Africa, from the Republican Government to the homeland authorities. In the third place we will oppose it because it appears to be contrary to what was negotiated with some homeland leaders, the Bill having been rejected by them and others, despite what the hon. the Minister has said. In the fourth place it is seen as part of a further move towards the ultimate denial of South African citizenship to Blacks of this country.

Those are four of the reasons we have for opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. The hon. the Minister, in his very brief introductory speech, has sketched some of the background against which this Bill must be seen. It certainly comes to this House against the background of rather lengthy and contradictory speculation over a period. In some quarters there has been hope and speculation that at last the Government would relax the stringency of the operation influx control and the so-called “pass laws” which regulate the movement of millions of South Africans in the land of their birth. In other quarters there has been a cynicism from the start in regard to the whole approach of the Government on this issue. I am afraid that it is this latter attitude which I believe is being vindicated by the appearance of the Bill in its present form. The build-up in relation to this matter commenced some two years ago or more, as the hon. the Minister has indicated. I think it was the Prime Minister who invited certain of the homeland leaders to discuss with him the operation of pass laws and influx control. A discussion then took place. I believe that in October 1977 a further top-level conference was held between either the Prime Minister or this hon. the Minister’s predecessor and certain of the homeland leaders. The notable exception on that occasion was the Chief Minister of kwaZulu, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, who declined to attend the conference. The conference was held to discuss the operation of pass laws and influx control regulations. There was some hope, certainly in the Press, that some progress was going to be made in this matter. It was on 15 September that there appeared in a Government supporting English newspaper—I think it was probably at the time of the Transvaal congress of the NP— these headlines—

The report continued—

It went on—

That was clearly hopeful reporting on the part of a Government newspaper that seemed to stem from Government sources.

I obviously do not know what was discussed specifically at these conferences with the homeland leaders, but it does seem clear at this stage that the Bill which the hon. the Minister has introduced is not the sort of Bill which these leaders expected, despite what the hon. the Minister has said. One of them, Dr. Cedric Phatudi, was reported in the Rand Daily Mail last week—

This is one of the homeland leaders to whom the hon. the Minister has referred in his brief introductory remarks.

One has of course the indication of the Government of kwaZulu last week—

It then goes on to say—

Therefore there is clear evidence that the Bill before the House certainly does not represent the real feelings of the Black people for whom it was designed, not even those who participated in the discussions and negotiations which were held as a prelude to this legislation being introduced.

I want to go further. I want to refer to the attitude of the Chief Minister of kwaZulu who has been consistent throughout in rejecting this type of measure. His attitude was consistent even in his participation in discussions about this because he had suspected that the Government had no intention of alleviating the situation in regard to influx control and the pass laws. In his policy speech at Ulundi on 20 April, the day after the hon. the Minister had opened the Legislative Assembly, the Chief Minister of kwaZulu dealt at some length with this whole issue—

He went on to say—

And you believe that.

No, I am quoting this to the hon. the Minister because this is a comment made by the Chief Minister of the largest homeland in South Africa and a comment directly concerning the legislation which this House is now discussing. He went on—

That was the previous day.

Those are the comments of the Chief Minister of kwaZulu before this legislation came before Parliament and we have seen further comments since there has been an opportunity of looking at the Bill. Whatever the Government’s reaction to these comments may be, I believe that the Chief Minister indicated in that speech, which was a previously prepared speech and a speech which, I am quite sure, was made available to all who were in attendance at that Assembly meeting and certainly to the Commissioner-General, his absolute repugnance to the Government’s attempts to clothe homeland authorities with the task of issuing documents or passes, call them what one may.

Since then, of course, these feelings have been exacerbated, I must say, by the hon. the Minister’s statements that in time there will not be a single Black South African citizen. I say this because all these things are linked up and they create an atmosphere. Black people cannot be blamed if they see in this Bill an attempt to commence this process of separating them from the rest of the country of their birth. The recent statement by the authorities in kwaZulu rejecting this Bill is a full confirmation of this fact.

It is undoubtedly part of the process of linking all urban Blacks with the homelands. The hon. the Minister has conceded this quite freely in the remarks which he has made. This is a situation which I believe has given rise to the disquiet which exists. The whole question of linking the urban Blacks with the homelands’ situation was reflected again last week with the denial of passports to Dr. Motlana and Mr. Tambola in the Transvaal as a result of the Transkei and Bophuthatswana accepting independence. It was stated that because those two homelands became independent States, Dr. Motlana and Mr. Tambola could no longer be South African citizens. Even Government supporters have indicated in this regard that they believe that Blacks with no ties with a homeland should be treated in a manner somewhat different. It was said by Rapport last Sunday—

The newspaper then continued to say that there should be some other sort of situation and that one cannot simply lump all the Blacks in the urban areas and expect them to accept links with the homelands. I think this is a situation which the hon. the Minister should take into account when he comes with a measure of this kind. Yet, it is true that the Government insists on this trend in linking Blacks further with the homelands. However, what does the Bill do? Let us look at it. This is the Bill that has been held up to some homeland leaders as heralding the streamlining of the pass law influx control system, but what does it in fact do? The hon. the Minister has indicated that basically this Bill brings two basic changes. It introduces a new document which is to be issued in terms of a law to be passed by the homelands Legislative Assembly. This is to replace the usual reference book and will serve the same purpose as those reference books. Secondly, the Bill introduces certain changes in nomenclature.

Do you support that?

Yes. Of course it is an improvement. I could have told the hon. the Minister ten or 15 years ago that the Black people of South Africa prefer to be called “Blacks” instead of “Bantu”. He has only now discovered it, and I am glad he has done so. [Interjections.] A very long time ago already we argued time and time again that the term “Bantu” was not acceptable to Black people and that they resented it very bitterly indeed. Now the Government has arrived on the scene at last and we welcome their arrival.

The principal Acts which this Bill amends are the Bantu Urban Areas (Consolidation) Act, No. 25 of 1945, and the Bantu (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act, No. 67 of 1952. If one takes the new definition of reference book in clause 1 of this Bill and integrates it with the definitions contained in the two principal Acts to which I have referred, a reference book can fall in any one of six categories.

In the first place it can be a reference to book issued by a Bantu Affairs Commissioner to a Bantu who is a South African citizen and in which is recorded the appropriate prescribed particulars relating to that individual. In the second place it can be an identity document issued in lieu of a reference book to a Bantu who is not a South African citizen. In the third place it can be a document in the form prescribed to be valid for a limited or a fixed period. It is a temporary document issued if for any reason it is found inexpedient, impracticable or impossible to issue a reference book to a Bantu. In the fourth place it can be a duplicate of such reference book, identity document or documents. In the fifth place it can be the sort of document which is created by this Bill specifically, namely a document issued to a Bantu who is a South African citizen and issued in terms of any law of any Legislative Assembly of a homeland, any law whereby “his identity and his right to be at the place where he is, can be established”. This is the additional document introduced by this Bill. Finally, in the sixth place, it can be any passport, permit, document of identity or any travel document referred to in the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act of 1972. In other words, it concerns foreign Black people. These are the various types of reference books which will now be available. But the one we are particularly concerned with, is the one to be issued by the homelands authority. As I have indicated, in terms of the relevant provision in the Bill, there are two aspects to this particular document. In the first place it must establish the holder’s identity and in the second place his right to be at the place where he is—this is a very important element. If it does not do either of these, it is not a reference book in terms of the Bill. The Bill provides that if a person has such a reference book he shall not be obliged to have any other type of reference book. Clause 3 of the Bill provides that in any reference book issued under this legislation there shall be entered the prescribed particulars of the person to whom it is issued. Since the new type of reference book is not issued under this legislation, but by a homelands authority, clause 2 prescribes to the homeland authority that if any document is to be recognized as a reference book in the rest of the Republic, it must contain the two elements I have referred to. I think that is a fair interpretation of what the effect of clause 2 is.

There are other clauses which bring the new category of reference book into line with the other reference books relating to the need in law for a Bantu to be in possession of one of these documents. It provides that if it is issued to somebody, he should surrender any other reference book. It also refers to the need for any employer to record “the prescribed particulars” relating to any employment contract. Presumably therefore this document must be such that these particulars can be recorded.

The Bill further makes provision that no one shall employ a Bantu who is not in possession of one or other of these reference books. And so it goes on. In clause 9 it is stipulated that this document, together with other reference books, must be recorded in the Bantu Reference Bureau. Therefore particulars from a document issued by a homeland administration are to be recorded in the Government’s data bank. It is therefore nothing new, nothing exciting for the Bantu people. It merely becomes involved in the whole influx control pass-law system, call it what you like, the whole existing system in South Africa, because it is fed into the Government’s data bank and becomes part of the Bantu Reference Bureau, and the homelands authority is simply there to issue the documents, together with other authorities, around South Africa and they all become part and parcel of the same system.

Clause 10, which naturally includes the new document in it, relates to the power which the Minister has in regard to reference books generally, inter alia, the transmission of information to the Bureau, including the new document created in this Bill, the surrender, the disposal or the seizure of documents, the particulars which may be recorded in documents, the signing of documents by employers; all these things, including the document issued by the homeland, are the powers which the hon. the Minister has to exercise by way of regulation. It is interesting, and perhaps the hon. the Minister can comment on this, that apparently the hon. the Minister can specify by regulation what particulars are to be included in the documents issued in terms of a homeland law. That is the authority which the hon. the Minister has, is it not?

It must be acceptable to us.

So the Minister can prescribe by regulations in terms of a document issued by a homeland?

If the document does not have all the information we want we do not accept it.

In other words, the Government has the authority.

If the document does not satisfy us we can replace it with the reference book.

They therefore have that limited authority, but provided the document satisfies the Government then the Government will accept it.

Clause 11 includes this document in those which “any authorized officer may at any time call upon any Bantu to produce”. There is no streamlining here. It is the same old pass-law demands. The hon. the Minister may not like the word “pass-law” and I know he is going to say that he does not like it because he has already said on a previous occasion that we must talk about reference books or identity documents, but if one wants to put the issue to the test one must ask the persons for whom these documents are designed what they would call them. I am quite sure that the vast majority of Black people in South Africa will continue to call them their “dom-passe”. It is exactly the same sort of situation. One may give it a more sophisticated name, but in fact the effect is the same because it is a document which is regulating the movement of people about South Africa. That is why it cannot be called an identity document. It does not have the same effect as the Book of Life which the hon. the Minister or I carry. This is a document which has a very different effect indeed upon the lives of the people who are going to have to carry it.

Clause 13 relates to the offences and penalties and includes this new document in the operation of those provisions. It is an offence for example, as we know, not to be in possession of such a document. The person has to produce the document on demand and the only advantage which this new document appears to have over the other reference books is that the holder will not be guilty of an offence if he is unable to produce the new document within 5 km of the place where he has been so requested. He therefore at least has that little benefit of being able to produce the document, if it is there, presumably within a radius of 5 km. This is apparently not a privilege enjoyed by other reference book holders. However, that appears to some small privilege given to the person who happens to have this sort of homelands document. Therefore there is no real streamlining, there is no real attempt to alleviate the hardships of the system. Whatever the document is called, it is still necessary to produce it on or near demand. It is still necessary to establish that the person who carries it has the right to be at the place where he is. It is still necessary to reinforce all these things and this reinforces the notion that the rights of that person as a citizen are different from the rights of others. It is for these reasons that we oppose the Bill.

The hon. the Minister told us about the commission which operated and about the negotiations which took place. He has suggested that there was approval for the precise type of legislation. I have referred to the comments which have appeared in the Press by some of the homeland leaders, and certainly by one of them. Of course, the kwaZulu homeland leader has consistently been opposed to this legislation. I have pointed out that there is definitely opposition to this legislation. However, I specifically want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this Bill has been presented to the homeland leaders for their consideration and for their comment. I am talking of the Bill as it is in its present form. I do not mean any sort of general idea behind this legislation, but the actual Bill.

Of course not!

That is the first question I want to put to the hon. the Minister. I want to ask him further what the homeland leaders in fact understand by the document which is created. I have read some of the comments made by the hon. the Minister when this Bill was debated in the Other Place last week. There he referred to this document as either a travel document or an identity document. If he has presented it in that form to the homeland leaders, it is quite likely then that he will get an enthusiastic response. If he has suggested to them that this can be compared with a travel document, the same sort of travel document or identity document that he and I carry, it would be surprising if they did not indicate some sort of general approval. However, what has emerged, is that when homeland leaders have been confronted with the terms of this Bill, they have found it to be totally unacceptable. They have found it to be totally unlike the sort of situation which they envisaged when they first had consultations with the Government on this issue.

These are certain of the matters which, I believe, the hon. the Minister should respond to. However, generally, I am afraid, despite all the high expectations that this might be a move in the right direction, I do not believe that there is any real change, any alleviation of the situation in regard to the operation of influx control arising out of the new document which is being created. I do not believe the mere fact that a homeland authority will now be able to issue a document which will be accepted as a reference book—to use the hon. the Minister’s term—is going to assist the matter, because the person who is going to have to carry that document when moving about the Republic is going to be subjected to exactly the same expectations on the part of the South African authorities as has been the case with every other Black man over the years in regard to the whole question of reference books or pass books, call them what we may.

For these reasons we on this side of the House intend to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with amazement to the speech made by the hon. member for Musgrave. He did not surprise me. In fact, I expected this type of speech from him, especially on an occasion such as this. I should like to ask the hon. member for Musgrave whether he wants to see influx control done away with completely in South Africa. He need only say “yes” or “no”. [Interjections.] I want him to reply to my question. Perhaps we can then argue further. All I am asking the hon. member to do is to say “yes” or “no”. I expect nothing more from him.

Do you still beat your wife? “Yes” or “no”? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this matter concerns the influx of Black people, especially into the prescribed areas, the urban complexes.

Yes, Sea Point!

Pinelands too, of course!

I now want a reply from the PFP. As I understood the hon. member for Musgrave, he is opposed to every control measure by means of which Black people are kept out of the prescribed areas. Now the hon. member for Musgrave must answer me. I want to know whether or not he wants influx control done away with completely. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I know that they will not give us an answer. They are not going to reply to us.

No, they are too afraid!

In another debate, earlier today, the hon. member for Johannesburg North—he is not here at the moment; he is probably having his supper—implied that holding a right of leasehold and a right of occupation in an urban Black residential area, may not be an unqualified right. I asked him a question about that, a question to which he replied in the affirmative. Now I want to know from the hon. member for Musgrave, if the hon. member for Johannesburg North is in favour of influx control, why he is making such a fuss now about every measure by means of which the movement of a Black man is limited to a prescribed territory. I want the hon. member to answer me. [Interjections.]

Now they are dead quiet!

We shall reply. [Interjections.]

He will not reply to us. [Interjections.] This party has quite a number of standpoints. It all depends where they are, what the occasion is and who is present. When they speak to the Black leaders then they butter them up. These people, however, are not prepared to adopt a standpoint to which they want to adhere. The opposition to the legislation that we have before us tonight, is not based on merit. They are opposing it because they, and that hon. member in particular, received instructions from Zululand. Those hon. member receive their instructions from Zululand. I want to tell them that their standpoint is not based on merit, but is based on the standpoint that Chief Buthelezi has dictated to them.

I want to go back a little into the history of this matter on this occasion tonight. I want to refer to a statement issued on 22 January 1975 entitled “Statement on the Conference of Homeland Leaders with the Prime Minister, Mr. B. J. Vorster, in the H. F. Verwoerd Building, Cape Town”.

†They discussed 14 points altogether and nine of those points dealt with the urban Black. I want to quote point 4: “The Prime Minister said that there was no alternative to influx control and it could not be done away with.”

*Mr. Speaker, now the hon. member comes here and says that we have misled the Black people. We came here with legislation that they thought would be different. The hon. member was not in Parliament then. The hon. member must learn one thing in politics. He is bald (bleskop) already, but he must at least get to know his facts first. He must look at his facts.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw those words. I meant that he is a veteran in politics, i.e. an experienced member in politics. I meant veteran (ringkop) and if the hon. member is in any way offended, then I beg his pardon. I meant that he is a political veteran and not that he is bald.

†The hon. K. D. Matanzima, Chief Minister of the Transkei, the hon. L. M. Mangope, Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana, the hon. L. L. Sebe, Chief Minister of the Ciskei, the hon. C. N. Phatudi, Chief Minister of Lebowa, the hon. R. R. Mphephu, Chief Minister of Venda, the hon. H. W. Ntsanwisi, Chief Minister of Gazankulu, the hon. W. Mota, Chief Minister of Qwaqwa and the hon. A. N. M. G. Buthulezi, Chief Executive Councillor of kwaZulu, were present at that occasion. The hon. the Prime Minister explicitly told them that there was no alternative to influx control and it could not be done away with.

*The hon. the Prime Minister told the people candidly and honestly that we cannot do away with influx control. The Black leaders were not given the wrong impression at all. The hon. the Prime Minister put it to them in this way. I quote further—

That was the original aim of these discussions. [Interjections.] I quote further—

This work was followed up. Then another statement was issued on 3 November 1977. The statement referred to the previous discussions, and reads as follows—

I repeat the word “unanimously” in connection with this public statement—

What recommendations?

They unanimously reached agreement on the revision of the present system of influx control. [Interjections.]

*Let me go just a little further. Just give me a chance. The statement continues. Reference is made to further discussions held on 3 November 1977. The Chief Minister of the Ciskei, the Chief Minister of Lebowa, the Chief Minister of Venda, the Chief Minister of Gazankulu, the Chief Minister of Qwaqwa and the Chief Minister of KaNgwane were present at these discussions. They unanimously reached consensus on this matter. Hon. members can read what this statement says. I shall quote, however, what is stated in the statement in order to indicate what they reached consensus on. I quote—

Surely it is very clear what is being said there. The hon. member for Musgrave, however, quotes Dr. Phatudi. I am not so sure whether Dr. Phatudi had all the facts to hand when he made that statement. The fact of the matter is that Dr. Phatudi was one of the Chief Minister’s present when this matter was discussed. I do not know whether the hon. member for Musgrave and his friends have given Dr. Phatudi other advice in the meantime, but the last I heard of Dr. Phatudi in this regard, was that he supported this measure wholeheartedly. [Interjections.] This is the fact of the matter. He supported it wholeheartedly. However, I want to go further. [Interjections.] That hon. member stated his standpoint on the grounds of the standpoint of the Chief Minister of kwaZulu, Mr. Buthelezi. Then he says that Mr. Buthelezi says: “He does not want to become a foreigner in his own country.” I think we must understand one another very clearly on that point. I do not think that Mr. Buthelezi is at all entitled to claim that the whole of South Africa should be called his “own country”. I want to say that there is a part of this country that the White people consider to be their country. It is our right. It is our birthright. We do not recognize the claim of the Black people to the whole of South Africa; we deny it. The other basic matter is that we cannot lay claim to that part of South Africa that traditionally belongs to the Zulus and the other nations. We think they are entitled to it. We shall not lay claim to freedom of movement in those Black territories.

Where are the borders of those territories?

Surely the hon. member knows where the borders are. If he can read a map, he will know where they are.

For the Zulus?

Of course. Surely the hon. member can read a map; or can he not? The fact of the matter is that there is such a thing as a White area or a non-Black area, to put it like that, and there is also such a thing as Black father-lands in this country. If one accepts those basic facts, one must also accept what goes with them. One must then accept that as a White man one will be a foreigner in kwaZulu, Vendaland, or wherever. This is exactly where these people’s opposition to this legislation comes in. They do not recognize a White South Africa. Nor do they claim a place in Southern Africa for the White man. They recognize only one South Africa.

That is the Progs.

Yes, I am speaking of the Progs. They recognize only one South Africa, which they want to share with a Black majority of 18 million people on a non-differentiated basis.

With Black majority rule.

That is where the whole problem lies. They accept Black majority rule. They apparently accept that Chief Buthelezi will ultimately become the leader in Natal. This is where the difference between us and them comes in, because we do not accept it. Since we recognize something like a non-Black South Africa, and lay claim to it, it is our God-given right to make laws here and to arrange things here as it suits us. This is the point as well as the point of difference.

Chief Buthelezi has levelled a great deal of criticism at the issuing of these documents. He opposed it. It is certainly his right to do so. We are not going to force him and his people to accept these new travel documents. However, we do listen to all the other homeland leaders with whom we reached an agreement on this measure, and who are going to apply this system, to the great advantage of their citizens. Those people are not going to stand in our way. They are going to support us. We are not going to be prescribed to by Chief Buthelezi.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member which of the homeland leaders themselves have seen this Bill?

All of them have been consulted on this, except Chief Buthelezi.

On this specific Bill?

I cannot go into details and say whether they have seen this specific Bill … [Interjections.] … but the principles were discussed with them, and the measures were discussed with them one by one, as I pointed out here. We have the support of those people in this matter. Chief Buthelezi’s standpoint, however, cannot apply at all, because he refused to co-operate in respect of this matter from the word go. In any event his opposition to it is absolutely irrelevant to me at this stage.

I want to go further. The hon. members of the Official Opposition opposed this legislation. They opposed the issuing of new documents. They have two objections in this regard. The one is that we are no longer issuing them ourselves, but that the homelands have to issue them. Where has one encountered a more colonialist, paternalistic and imperialistic attitude than this! They want us to issue the documents to the Black people. In their opinion, the homeland Governments may not issue such documents. Surely they have every right to do so. Surely it is not the privilege of the hon. the Minister to issue those documents to them for always. Surely they are going through a process of political development. So grant them the right to issue those documents themselves. The opposition to this Bill amounts to the fact that the PFP is in favour of retaining the so-called reprehensible passbook system. They oppose this legislation that is doing away with the so-called passbook. If a Government such as the Government of Lebowa for example, were to issue documents itself, those hon. members must not try to make me believe that it is not a better situation than issuing the passbooks that they criticize so much. When they are offered the opportunity to do away with the passbook, they oppose the measure tooth and nail in this House and they act as if it is an inferior document that is going to be issued and as if there is going to be no advantage in it for the Black man. I want to repeat that those hon. members are adopting that standpoint because they receive their instructions from Ulundi. Because that party does not have a true power base in White politics, it is moving ever closer to the outskirts of Parliament and receiving more and more instructions from bodies outside Parliament.

And from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, having listened very carefully to the two hon. members who have spoken so far in this debate, I want to say that the hon. member for Lydenburg has convinced me of one thing, and that is that without a major change in attitude on the part of White people and the way in which influx control is enforced, the present dislike of the Black population for the documents which are issued by the South African Government is simply going to be transferred on to this new document to be issued by any one of the homeland Governments. The hon. member gave no indication at all that there is a difference of approach. Surely this is in the hon. the Minister’s mind, for if he is going to replace what he himself has called “the hated passbooks” with something else, he is going to have to persuade the people who are enforcing this form of influx control by means of a document, that there will have to be a radically different approach towards the people who use that book and those who are required to produce it during their daily activities in the so-called White South Africa As I said earlier on, when one is opposed to a Bill, it is not necessary to talk as long as when one is supporting a Bill, as we were earlier this afternoon. That is because there is an unbridgeable gulf between us. It is known to both sides of the House that there is an unbridgeable gulf of principle between what the Government is trying to do to the Black population of South Africa, what this party is trying to do, and what that party, the PFP, is trying to do. We have a different point of view altogether. [Interjections.] We have a different point of view, just as the views of those two parties differ.

What is happening is that the self-governing States, the homelands, or however one would care to define them, are being given or have powers to issue a reference book or a document of identity to people which will identify them and which will give the reasons for them to be in the place where they are. The reason for them being in the place where they are is that they have complied with all the requirements that our Government puts upon them.

That is right.

From that point of view the hon. the Minister quite rightly says that he is entitled to prescribe whatever that document shall have in it because it has to satisfy our requirements. From that point of view I have no objection. However, what is happening is that by attempting to create this impression in the minds of the Black people—which he is doing—they are being pushed inexorably towards independence. This is the problem which faces us. The good intentions of the hon. the Minister are called into question. It is the ultimate intention of the Government which is negating all that the hon. the Minister is doing, because he provides no alternative. He has told them that they will be independent or nothing. This is the problem that we face. The homelands have the choice of becoming independent or remaining as they are, and this is an insupportable situation for them. The fact that they are now getting these powers is creating an illusion in the minds of the White people and not in the minds of the Black people. This is a dangerous step the hon. the Minister is taking, because he is creating the illusion in the minds of the White voters that the Government has embarked on a path which offers a solution to the problem, whilst it is not so. For those accepting independence, the mere fact of doing so is merely creating another problem. It does therefore not offer a solution to the relationship between Black and White for all time to come. It creates a different problem, as the Transkei has quite clearly demonstrated. Recently we had the example of independent Transkei, the child of the NP, which has shown very clearly that the problems that they sought to avoid by making them independent have been replaced by other problems, which may in fact be far greater than the original problems that were to be solved.

That is nothing in comparison to what your policy would bring upon us.

My policy is designed deliberately to harmonize the relationships between all the different groups of people in South Africa, seeing it, as we do, as part of a plural relationship.

With influx control?

I have said this afternoon in another debate that it is going to be in the interests of the community councils and others that are to be set up and are to be given powers by the hon. the Minister, to see that they themselves have control over influx. That is something that I want to state quite clearly.

With the “hated passbook”?

That is the hon. the Minister’s word and not mine. I am merely saying to the hon. the Minister that what he is trying to create by introducing this legislation is the impression in the minds of our people that he is solving problems by moving people away and towards independence. I do not accept that this is a valid contention at all on the part of the hon. the Minister. I think it creates a dangerous illusion in the minds of the White population. What is happening is merely that the Black homelands are in a state of limbo, and are, in every instinct, against accepting independence. They are accepting independence only as the better of two evils which are offered to them by the hon. the Minister. We shall oppose the Bill at Second Reading and we shall propose amendments to it during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the arguments of the hon. member for Mooi River would have been more complete if he had told the House …

With his balls.

Yes, with his “balls” policy and all. He should have told us whether his party is still in favour of influx control.

But I explained it.

I want to know whether it must be done away with or whether we must retain it The hon. member is very quick to say that we are trying to create the illusion amongst our people that we are moving towards success. We are on that road to success, and it is precisely because we are, that we are able to come to the House with this type of legislation. That hon. member must tell me, however, whether influx control is part of their policy or not.

I have already said that it must take place through those people themselves.

The hon. member for Lydenburg was quite correct when he said that the Official Opposition’s approach to this legislation is basically founded upon their wanting to eliminate influx control in South Africa completely. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Musgrave does not want to admit it. Why does he not say so? I cannot understand why the hon. member is evading it. Last year, when that party was still the PRP, they had no problem in this regard. On 24 June last year we discussed the Bantu Legislation Amendment Bill in this House and the hon. member for Houghton participated in that debate. She was dealing with the increase of penal provisions as regards influx control …

I am still going to talk about that.

Yes. The hon. member would do well to reply to what I am saying. The hon. member for Houghton was very honest when she spoke after me in that debate and I quote (Hansard, Vol. 69, col. 11410)—

The hon. member for Houghton went on to say—

She was then a member of the PFP and unless one of those members rises and expressly denies this, I take it that this is still their policy—

I am sure the hon. member still abides by that. [Interjections.] If this is true, I can quite understand what that party’s problem is. They want no form of control at all over the influx of Black people to prescribed territories.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Musgrave. I do not understand the hon. member’s argument. Earlier this year, during the debate that was held on the Transkei’s attitude towards South Africa, his leader, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, reproached the Prime Minister and the Government for not negotiating with the homeland leaders as equals. He went on to allege—

What has happened here now? The hon. member for Lydenburg once again repeated the facts tonight after the hon. the Minister had said in his Second Reading speech that this legislation is the result of discussions held with the homeland leaders not by the hon. the Minister, but by the hon. the Prime Minister personally.

That is not true. Did they discuss this Bill?

Of course it is true. The hon. member, however, is now quoting in this House what Chief Gatsha Buthelezi said, because what the hon. member said here today, is the voice of Buthelezi. It is not the voice of the hon. member for Musgrave that we heard; it was Chief Buthelezi, disguised as the hon. member for Musgrave, who spoke here this afternoon. [Interjections.] The hon. member quoted a statement by the Chief Minister of kwaZulu that actually amounted to his calling the hon. the Prime Minister a liar. I say that is a very serious allegation. I shall leave the matter at that, however. In reply to the hon. member’s pertinent question, I now want to tell him categorically that every principle contained in this amending Bill before the House tonight, was presented to every homeland leader for information and comment. The hon. member must take it from me that it is true. I cannot tell the hon. member now what the homeland leaders’ comments were. The hon. the Minister will elucidate this aspect because he is in a position to do so, but I can tell him that the draft Bill was in fact presented to these people. Whatever the Chief Minister of Lebowa, Dr. Phatudi may have said, was definitely not based upon the exact content of this Bill.

What is the Bill actually about? The hon. member objected in the strongest terms to the fact that the document that will be issued in terms of the proposed section 3(1)bis(c), is a document that provides, inter alia, for the right of its possessor to be where he is. The hon. member has objected strongly to that. He also objected to the name of this document. Surely there is no problem here. If he looks at clause 2, he will see that it is expressly stated in the proposed sub-section (1)bis(c)(ii) that it will be a document by means of which, in the first place, his identity will be determined, and secondly, his right to be where he is. In other words, it is a document that serves a dual purpose; it is both an identity document and a travel document.

That hon. member is probably in possession of a passport. I now want to ask him a question. If he finds himself in a given country with his passport, does his passport not contain his right to be in the place where he is? Surely this is the elementary principle that is at issue here, but why did the hon. member not accept it? As he sits there, he has his parliamentary identity document on him.

Does the hon. member have that document, which authorizes him to move freely in the Parliamentary building and the H. F. Verwoerd building, on him? [Interjections.] The hon. member must not tell me that he does not have it on him, because then I shall report him! He must have it on him. Nor can he refuse to show it on request, because otherwise he has to appear before you, Mr. Speaker, and bear the consequences. It is so very easy to gloss over these filings so lightly. I assume that the hon. member is in possession of a book of life that indicates his identity, inter alia. He is shaking his head and I must therefore assume that he does not have one; then at least he has an identity card.

He has a kwaZulu identity document.

I do not know whether he has an identity document issued by kwaZulu. Each of us in South Africa is in possession of a book of life that determines our identity. If we go beyond the borders of our country, we must be in possession of a passport that gives us the right to be where we are. If I want to go to Langa, Guguletu or one of the other Black residential areas—the hon. member should ask the hon. member for Rondebosch because he knows this from unpleasant experience—I must be in possession of a permit. I cannot simply enter those territories, not even with the documents that I possess.

These are the documents which we must have in our possession. I am not ashamed to use them. Why is the hon. member now pleading on behalf of the Black man that the Black man should not carry them? I am afraid that the arguments simply do not hold water. I should like to raise a final argument in pursuance of what the hon. member said. I note that there is an amendment of the hon. member’s on the Order Paper. His amendment is to the effect that a Black South African citizen must have the choice whether he wants a passbook or a document envisaged in section 3(1)bis(c). But one cannot have one’s bread buttered on both sides. If the hon. member is opposed to influx control and the objectionable system of carrying a passbook, as he made out, why does he want to maintain it? Why does he want to perpetuate the provision in the Act? We want to do away with it now in an orderly manner as the hon. the Minister said in his second reading speech. The hon. the Minister pointed out that the introduction of the travel document and the identity document is based on a homeland law that applies to the citizens of that Black State. In other words, it is based on citizenship. A person’s citizenship determines who is going to issue his document to him. He does not have a choice. It is the same principle that we apply as regards citizenship of Black States that have obtained their independence. Those who remain here with us, cannot exercise a choice. This is basic to this party’s policy. We cannot deviate from it, because that would not fit in with our whole philosophy as regards our policy of separate development. Therefore, this argument of the hon. member does not hold water.

I just want to say that this Bill is legislation that methodically goes about introducing a system whereby every Black man who is in South Africa and who, in South Africa, is either a citizen of a Black State or of an independent Black State, one of the two— ultimately we hope that all will be independent—will have with them a document issued by his own government and his own people. If we accept the principle that he will have that document which will serve as a passport, a travel document and an identity document, it is obvious, as the hon. the Minister said in his second reading speech, that that document will also have to lend itself to the endorsements relating to influx, housing and his work. This goes hand in hand with our system of influx control.

In conclusion, I just want to refer to the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who has an amendment on the Order Paper in connection with clause 17. It is an amendment that amuses me greatly. By means of clause 17 on page 13 we are replacing the word “Bantu” in all legislation in its various connotations by the word “Black” and we are adapting it mutatis mutandis to the different circumstances. The amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg North moves that paragraph (n) should be, not amended, but deleted. I do not understand it. What does paragraph (n) say? Clause 17(1)(n) reads—

In other words, the hon. member is putting nothing in the place of “Black States”. By moving the deletion of paragraph (n), the hon. member wants to perpetuate the words “Bantu homelands”. Now I want to ask the hon. member: For what strange, sinister reason does he want to do so? The hon. member’s petticoat is sticking out rather far. We can see very clearly what the hon. member intends by perpetuating the words “Bantu homelands” in our legislation. I do not think it does him credit. I think the hon. member owes the House a very good explanation of why he has placed that specific amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, as is often the case in this House, hon. members quote from what was said in previous debates, but, of course, they never quote in full what one has said. What they do, however, is to take things out of context. This is exactly what the hon. member for Koedoespoort has done this evening. He quoted from a speech I made last year in this House on the subject of passes and I do not take back one, single, solitary word, but then the hon. member must quote in full what I said. I will do it now since he did not do so. As the hon. member rightly said, I stated—

Those are the words he quoted and he went on to say, as I did—

By the way, I said a little earlier on—

Of course, what the hon. member did not do was to quote my next sentence. I said then—

And I abide by it right now as well.

So what!

We agreed … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Just a moment! Give me a chance! I listened to the hon. member when he spoke. Now, I ask him to give me a chance to speak without being disturbed.

[Inaudible.]

Give me a chance, or go out and enjoy yourself outside. [Interjections.] We agree that the laws that have been imposed on Africans in this country—and only on Africans—over a period of many years cannot be abolished overnight. That will clearly not be a possibility. Together with the abolition of the pass laws must go the provision of housing, the opening up of job opportunities and labour bureaux which will guide the labourers in those areas which … [Interjections.] Those are obvious elementary facts. I would have thought so, anyway. Nevertheless, I can add another one, viz. improving conditions in the rural areas. That will also make a considerable difference to the whole question of the influx of these people into the urban areas. The hon. member for Koedoespoort did not say that I also said these things could not be abolished overnight. He said nothing of the kind. He gave the impression that I was going to wave away the pass laws tomorrow. In principle we are against the pass laws. We will work towards the repeal and the abolition of those pass laws as fast as possible.

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must address the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. [Interjections.]

You have your back turned towards the Chair.

Well, I am very sorry, but I do not quite see how I am going to be able to address you, Mr. Speaker, facing you from where I stand. [Interjections.] If I address you, Mr. Speaker, while facing you, I must have my back turned towards hon. members of the House. [Interjections.]

I now want to reply to the hon. member for Lydenburg on the question of Chief Phatudi. He says that Chief Phatudi accepts this measure, that the measure was unanimously accepted by the homeland leaders, with the only exception of Chief Buthelezi of kwa-Zulu. That is just not true. [Interjections.] It is not true. I would tell hon. members how I know that that is not true. I approached Chief Phatudi to ask him what his opinion was on the legislation which was to be introduced here in Parliament this very day. He said to me I could tell Parliament that he was against this legislation, that it was not what he … [Interjections.] Well, if hon. members do not believe me, here I have a statement which Chief Phatudi made to me at lunch time today. [Interjections.]

Order!

Chief Phatudi says—

The hon. member for Lydenburg must answer this question of mine now. I have answered his question about the pass laws. Will he now …

The hon. member did not answer my question directly when I put it to her.

What?

I will reply to her in a speech.

The hon. member for Lydenburg must answer my question. Did Chief Phatudi see this very Bill, the Second Bantu Laws Amendment Bill, which we are discussing this evening?

I will answer you in a speech. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Lydenburg has delivered his speech already. Now, he is a great one for saying: “Answer yes or no. Did you give money to this? Did you give money to that?” [Interjections.]

Order!

I simply want the hon. member for Lydenburg to answer me by saying yes or no.

Mr. Speaker, may I reply to the hon. member for Houghton?

The hon. member needs only say yes or no. [Interjections.]

Does the hon. member intend giving me the opportunity of answering her? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Lydenburg must please resume his seat. He cannot make a speech now.

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple to merely say yes or no. People are saying yes or no in this House all the time. I am asking the hon. member for Lydenburg a very simple question, and it is not the sort of question like “Did you stop beating your wife?” It is a straightforward question. [Interjections.] Did Chief Phatudi see the very Bill which we are discussing here this very evening? [Interjections.] I will answer for the hon. member. The answer is “no”. [Interjections.] I will answer for him. The answer is “no”! [Interjections.]

Order!

How could Chief Phatudi comment on the Bill if he did not see it?

He read about it in the newspapers and he knows what … [Interjections.] Believe it or not, Chief Phatudi is able to read! [Interjections.] Chief Phatudi says—

I say unequivocally that the pass laws, passports, reference books, identity books or whatever you would like to call them, all have the same effect that the original passes or reference books had in that they limit mobility and they do not allow a man the right to move around his country and sell his labour in the best market. That is what the Black people object to. They do not care whether this thing is called a passport or an identity book. What they are worrying about are the consequences of having to carry these books. That is what they are worrying about. The hon. member for Musgrave is absolutely right when he says that the nomenclature does not matter at all. What matters is what these documents do to the lives of the people concerned. The hon. the Minister knows perfectly well that there is no more mobility of movement than before, with the exception of one tiny little concession which has been made as far as the identity books or passports issued by homeland leaders are concerned. That is that if a man cannot produce his book and he can say that it is somewhere within five kilometers he must be given the opportunity to produce it. Shall I tell the hon. the Minister, who is new to this particular post and may not know this, that that instruction has been a standing instruction of the police for years and years?

And to no avail!

It was a standing instruction in the days of Mr. Swart as Minister of Police and I remember it because I asked him that question. He told me, and this was years ago, that it was a standing instruction that the police should use their discretion and give a man the opportunity of producing his pass. This was a standing order.

Now it is in the Bill.

Oh, is that not Wonderful, because the police do not obey instructions, you mean?

No, but you are always insisting on that.

They have done it for you, Helen!

Oh, they have done it for me! Well, Sir, I am always so grateful for small mercies. I am going to suggest at Committee Stage on behalf of this party that that five kilometres be extended to 20 kilometres and that this should apply to all reference books and not just the books issued by the homeland leaders. This is just a carrot dangled before the noses of urban Africans to surrender their reference books and exchange them for the documents to be issued by the homeland leaders. I have news for the hon. the Minister. They will not bite his little carrot. They know exactly what he is after.

Because you said so.

I am very glad the hon. member thinks that I have got so much power over Blacks. I only wish I did have. I can only tell him that I know they are thinking on this issue and they are deeply aggrieved at having been deprived of their South African citizenship and they are not about to do anything …

This has nothing to do with citizenship.

It may not have anything directly to do with it, but the hon. the Minister knows perfectly well that the more urban Blacks he can get to surrender their South African reference books which give them some claim to South African citizenship, the better.

Are you in favour of reference books?

You know that I am not. I want to tell the hon. member in words of one syllable, since he is apparently unable to understand, that I am against reference books and I am against these passports issued by the homeland leaders, unless they are issued by homeland Governments for their own citizens from their own territories to travel overseas. And then of course they are not recognized. That is the funny thing about it. I am in favour of identity documents for every citizen in South Africa issued under the same conditions. Is that clear? The hon. member there and Chief Phatudi, who is not a member of an independent homeland, I and every other person living in this country, Black, Indian or Coloured, should have the same sort of identity document which will not limit mobility and which will not have to be produced on demand. That is the important thing.

If I am asked to produce my Book of Life which I do not have on me, I do not go to gaol. I do not get hauled off in a truck. I am given the opportunity—I think it is a period of seven days or whatever—to produce it at the nearest police station. [Interjections.] That is what I want for every citizen in this country.

Now let me come back to this whole issue of influx control which hon. members are so bothered about. First of all, I am amazed at the hon. the Minister whose intelligence I respect, and that is not something I would say about many hon. members on that side of the House, I would have you know. I do, however, happen to respect his intelligence. [Interjections.] No, Willem is all right too.

Count me out!

Yes, you are right!

Order!

I am amazed that the hon. the Minister should have used sophistry—that is the only way I can describe it, and I am sure he knows what that means— in trying to explain this new pass system. It was, of course, also used by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, which does not surprise me. Not at all! I expect that of him! What does he say! He says that he, as a White man, needs a document if he goes into a Black township. The hon. the Minister used a similar argument, only I think he referred to going to a homeland. Anyway, it was a similar argument. Can those hon. members really say, however, that the sort of permit they need to go into an African township is in any way comparable with the document that is required by a Black man to come into a prescribed White area? They know it is not so because we do not go into those areas looking for jobs. That is the difference. Black men, however, come into our areas for one reason only.

Why do you go there?

I go there because I am very interested to see conditions there and I would like to take the hon. member with me one day and show him the 15 to 20 people crammed into one little house in Soweto. I should like to show him. I shall take him with me.

I have had my tours already.

He need not sit there making sinister insinuations. I could not care less about him and his silly insinuations. I shall take him on a tour and try to instruct him on what is going on in this country. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister, however, knows that when Black people come into the White areas, they do not come here to go sightseeing. Very few of them come for the bright lights of the city. They come because they need jobs. It is as simple as that.

They come because of the usual thrust, as the Fagan Commission put it many years ago. There is the pull factor of the cities that offer jobs, and there is the push factor of poverty in the Native Reserves, as they were then called, and the situation is exactly the same today. When the hon. the Minister, the hon. member for Koedoespoort and I go visiting a Black township, we do not go to look for jobs, and when we go to a homeland, we do not go to look for jobs either.

You need a permit to enter.

Oh, but that is really such a silly argument. Honestly! Of course one needs a permit.

One cannot enter without it.

Yes, but the object is different. One has no trouble getting a permit and one does not want to stay there.

It is refused sometimes.

One has no intention of staying there, and everybody knows that is so. So it is a very different situation. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me get back to influx control for a minute. I am against the pass laws and I believe that every member on these benches is also against the pass laws, and we would phase them out as rapidly as we could for one simple reason, apart from believing that it is an elementary right for one to be able to move around one’s own country and to sell one’s labour on the best market. We believe that influx control and pass laws are the greatest cause of racial friction in this country, and I am not alone in this point of view.

Last year something like 400 000 people were arrested and convicted—not all went to gaol; a number of them paid fines—because of the so-called pass laws. Can the hon. the Minister tell me whether he thinks these laws are working? They are a joke; they cannot work because they are going against the natural economic forces in this country which are directed towards industrialization. One would need one policeman for every Black man in the urban area to make this thing work. It cannot work. It is impossible. So the best way is to see how else one could deal with a situation, which all of us on these benches also admit will be very difficult. We do not believe in overnight abolition. We know that that would lead to a great deal of trouble, but we believe in training, education, housing, jobs, labour bureaux to steer people in the right direction, etc. Then the processes of industrialization, which have always caused difficulty and have done so through the ages, be it in England, America or South Africa, will take their normal course. However, it cannot be done by simply imposing pass laws. I believe that the hon. the Minister, by coming up with this solution, has proved a bitter disappointment to the African homeland leaders who genuinely thought they were going to get a new deal for their own citizens who need to come to the urban areas to work, and also perhaps for their citizens already living in the urban areas. This is not the new deal these people thought they were going to get.

I said to the hon. the Minister that I am not alone in my views about the pass laws. Let me remind him—I said this last year and I say it again—of the Smit Committee’s report of 1942, the report of the interdepartmental committee’s on the Social, Health and Economic Conditions of the Urban African. They were adamantly against the pass laws, saying that those laws were the greatest single cause of racial friction. Let me also remind hon. members about the Fagan Commission Report which I know very well indeed because I gave evidence before that commission. That commission in its report, which came out in 1946—that was the last commission appointed by the Smuts Government—came out against the pass laws, though it did not recommend their abolition …

You referred to that last year as well.

Of course I did. I said I referred to it last year.

He did not listen.

No, it does not help. I would not have to repeat myself if the hon. member had taken it in. Thirdly, I referred to a very much more recent commission, i.e. the Viljoen Commission on Penal Reform. I referred to that last year as well. The Viljoen Commission did not recommend the abolition of the pass laws, but it recommended a new regulatory system. It said, in fact, that the introduction of a regulatory system designed to deal with influx control would be preferable to the present system whereby thousands of offenders are pushed through the criminal courts.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether I understood her to say that the Fagan Commission recommended the abolition of passes?

No, it did not recommend that. I specifically said that the Fagan Commission did not recommend the abolition of pass laws. But it had some very harsh words to say about the racial friction caused by the system and, I might say, it did recommend that there were many classes of Africans who should be exempted from carrying passes. That is what they recommended. I might say that I do not think that that was the brightest of suggestions, because even an exempted African can be stopped and asked to produce his exemption pass, so that one has the same set-up all over again. Unless, therefore, a system can be devised whereby people do not have to produce some document on demand, the same friction is in fact going to result.

I want to say, together with the hon. the member for Musgrave, that we are very disappointed in this. The hon. the Minister certainly gave us to understand that a brand new system was going to be forthcoming.

However, all we have is a brand new name. We have a new name for reference books. They are now going to be identity documents or they are going to be travel books. We also have a new name for Bantu beer which is now going to be called sorghum beer. We have a new name for Bantu commissioners. They are simply going to be commissioners. We also have a new name for Bantu homelands. They are going to be Black States.

We have a new name for the Minister of Bantu Administration.

Yes, in that respect we have also had a new name for some time now. Other than the new nomenclature and that small concession about non-production on demand, there is nothing new. I agree fully with what Chief Phatudi says, viz. that this Bill is a bitter disappointment to everybody.

Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly to put the viewpoint of my party in regard to this Bill. As regards the change of name from Bantu to Black, we are naturally in favour of it. In fact, during the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill—the hon. the Minister was not present at the time—I made the suggestion that consideration should perhaps be given to changing the name of the hon. the Minister’s department from Plural Relations and Development to Black Relations or “Swart Aangeleenthede”. I am still of the opinion that that is a better way of describing the activities of the hon. the Minister’s department.

As to the principle of this Bill, we in the SAP, as in the case of our predecessor, the old UP, accept the principle of influx control and the principle of passes. As far as I know every single commission that has ever sat in South Africa, appointed by either an NP Government or a UP Government, has come to the same conclusions to a greater or lesser degree, namely that one has to have some system of influx control and that one has to have some system of passes in the Republic, or else one will have chaos. The hon. member for Houghton has referred slightingly to exemptions which existed previously from the necessity to carry passes. I am one of those people who have always regretted that the exemption system should have been abolished by this Government. I think that was a mistake. I have always believed that one could distinguish the law-abiding Black man, the professional Black man and the Black man who has earned an exemption from carrying a pass, from his fellow Black man. I think that that symbol of pride of achievement should be reinstated in the system in the Republic. I have said that we accept the principle of influx control and of passes. What has upset me today is that the hon. member for Houghton said that she had telephoned Chief Phatudi at lunch-time to ask his opinion on this Bill. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you why it upsets me. It upsets me for the same reason I was upset at their behaviour when the Cabinet proposals concerning the Coloured and Indian people were put to a meeting of the elected leaders of the Coloured people by the hon. the Prime Minister and the other hon. Ministers responsible in the middle of last year. I have a cutting of a headline which appeared in The Argus at the time saying that Mr. Leon and Mr. Currie and the others had accepted the proposals in principle. They were delighted with them and felt they were a step in the right direction and a new thing. Mr. Speaker, I will bet you what happened thereafter. I am sure that telephone calls were made between hon. members of that party and those elected leaders over the next day or two. [Interjections.] That headline appeared in The Argus on Wednesday night but by the weekend a different tune was being sung altogether because by then there was total rejection of everything that had been proposed to the Coloured people. [Interjections.] This is a typical tactic of hon. members in the PFP. They wait for something to come to this House. Then they get on the telephone and they put their interpretation across of what is to be discussed in this House to the people with whom they have discussions. [Interjections.] Then a statement is issued by the people to whom they have spoken and statements are made by them in this House on behalf of the people to whom they have spoken, completely against everything that we as a White Parliament are discussing. [Interjections.]

The fact that Chief Buthelezi does not recognize homelands, does not recognize influx control and does not recognize any form of pass system, is no surprise to us whatsoever. Chief Buthelezi is hand in glove with the hon. members of the PFP. [Interjections.] I think it is high time we asked hon. members of the PFP how many of them are signed-up members of the Inkatha movement? [Interjections.] Chief Buthelezi wants one man, one vote in South Africa and he wants no system of differentiation between the different peoples in South Africa—so do they!

As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, I would like to say the following as it is the end of the session.

Careful, John!

I have sat here for some years with the hon. member for Houghton. I think she is a very able member of this House. I think she puts her case very well indeed. I also think that although she stands for something which very few of us in this House stand for nevertheless she puts her views over courageously and she puts them over well. I differ entirely from her basic philosophy and from her principles but I think it is time that someone in this House who opposes her radically should put on record his feelings about her as a person for speaking in the way she does. I would also say that she is radically left, and probably radically left of almost everyone in this House, [Interjections.] and if the PFP were not in existence in South Africa, there is perhaps another party to which she might belong—which also officially does not exist! The PFP, according to the hon. member for Houghton, stands for free movement, labour finding its own best market, that there should be no passes, no influx control, no separation of any kind, but then she adds the rider that the existing laws cannot be abolished overnight. She said further that there should first be houses, job opportunities and labour bureaux. She and I differ on the issue of “overnight”. [Interjections.] I think the hon. member’s interpretation of “overnight”, might mean the day after tomorrow. It is quite clear to me that her whole approach to these matters is completely different to that of the average South African. By the “average South African”, I mean all moderate, conservative, sensible and balanced South Africans.

We are in favour of the new system of identity documents and we accept the hon. the Minister’s assurance that the various homeland leaders, who have been consulted on this matter, are in favour of this system themselves. It is a step in the right direction and we wish it well. We differ from the PFP in that we do say that there is a distinction between the White people of South Africa and the Black people of South Africa. I would sum it up by saying that if the White people have to carry what is referred to as an identity document, I can see no reason why it should not be a different document to the one carried by the Black people. White people have to produce that document on demand to show who they are and Black people have to carry their particular document because of the laws of the country. The laws of the country include, for example, influx control restricting their movement. Black people are by and large much poorer than White people, and it would be a highly undesirable state of affairs if those who live in the homelands where they have not been able to create job opportunities for themselves—the Government must also be held responsible for not having allowed White people to create those opportunities for them—should be allowed to come to the White cities of South Africa in unrestricted hordes. If this were to be allowed, exactly the same situation would exist as the one that is existing right here on the doorstep of the Peninsula at the moment. That is why I say that we have no reason to be ashamed of the fact that there is a different kind of document for Black people compared to that for White people. If Whites go to Black homelands, they do not create the same problems as do the Blacks when they come from the homelands to the White areas of South Africa. So there is, in my opinion, every justification for a differentiation. I maintain that if the Black homeland leaders are in favour of this new system—and I hope they are, as the hon. the Minister says they are—then it is to be welcomed. With those few words, we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, from the earliest times, the movement of people in the various countries of the world has created problems for Governments. In our modern world of today, this movement is regulated by passports and visa control that is applied in practically every country in the world in order to determine who may enter a country and who may not, and who may leave a country and who may not. If it was the birthright of every person to travel where he wishes, when he wishes and as he wishes, nobody would need a passport nor would any visa control be necessary … [Interjections.] I am speaking in general and the choir may as well keep quiet. If, then, there was no reason for control by anyone on earth and if a passport was one’s right under all circumstances, one would receive it together with one’s birth certificate and it would be affixed somewhere to one’s person. The fact remains that passports are issued, visas are made available or may be refused and this means that the Governments of all countries in the world control these activities. Over the centuries the same situation has caused problems here in our country. The pass system in this country was not introduced by the old Dutch governors or by the Voortrekkers, but by the British when Lord Caledon introduced the pass system to South Africa in 1809. He was of the opinion that it was necessary in his time already.

Does it make it any better?

Wait a moment. The hon. member must not simply brush me away like that; I listened carefully to him while he spoke.

Does it make it any better?

I am just saying that the necessity for exercising control has been accepted in our country too over the centuries. What has it got to do with this? Hon. members on this side of the House elucidated the matter very neatly. It is always being cast in our teeth that we make decisions for the Black man in a paternalistic way and that he then simply has to accept or reject. What happened in this case? Firstly, there was a discussion in January 1975 between the hon. the Prime Minister, my predecessor and all the homeland leaders, including Chief Minister Buthelezi, on the desirability, or otherwise, of a system of influx control. The standpoint of the Black leaders was that they do not like a system of influx control. As the hon. member for Lydenburg said in his speech—I am grateful that he excused me so that I could go and have supper during his speech—the hon. the Prime Minister then told them that they should continue and try to work out a better system or try to suggest changes. The hon. the Prime Minister told them that he had an open mind to better proposals. A committee of three Chief Ministers was then appointed in order to institute a further investigation. Chief Minister Buthelezi withdrew from the discussions. He said that he wanted nothing to do with it and since then, until today, he has kept out of the discussions in this regard. We therefore know what his standpoint is, and I accept and respect it. We are therefore negotiating now with the homeland leaders who remain. Three of these homeland leaders began to institute an investigation. The convener of the committee was Chief Minister Matanzima, and when his country became independent, someone else took his place and the committee continued with its work. From January 1975 to January 1977—i.e. 2½% years—they worked on a new system. In June 1977 they came back and said that they had come to an agreement and that they had a new system which they wanted to recommend. The proposed system was then discussed with them by my predecessor, the hon. Minister M. C. Botha, and after they had agreed upon it, another discussion was arranged between all the homeland leaders, the hon. the Prime Minister and the then Minister. Once again these discussions were not attended by Chief Minister Buthelezi. On 3 November 1977 they met in Pretoria. After these discussions the seven homeland leaders—I have their names here—together with the hon. the Prime Minister and the then Minister, issued a unanimous statement. I want to read out the statement now because it reflects the spirit and the essence of the whole matter. The statement reads—

These are the advantages. The statement goes on to state—

This is what I am busy with now. The statement goes on—

This is the statement that was agreed upon by the seven homeland leaders, the hon. the Prime Minister and my predecessor on 3 November last year.

Did they discuss this Bill?

I am coming to that now. I am not going to avoid anything. After these discussions the Bill was then drawn up. The draft Bill in its original form—it was not yet in its present form then because small changes were made from time to time; its basic principles remained the same however—was sent to each one of the homeland leaders at the beginning of this year. Not only was it sent to their Prime Ministers, but also to their Cabinet Ministers. Of all the homelands only one objected to it: Buthelezi did not react to it. I shall be misleading hon. members if I say that that draft Bill had the same contents as the Bill that is now before the House. The Bill assumed its present form after changes had been made to the draft Bill as it was drawn up by the legal advisers.

Did they accept it?

Some accepted it and others did not react to it. It was, however, sent to every homeland. Must I ask each one of them for an answer now? It was sent to all of them, and only one of them objected to it. Of course, whether the homeland leaders agree now after they have been manipulated and worked over by those hon. members, is another matter. The fact remains, however, that the homeland leaders, with the exception of one, initially accepted the Bill in its present form. This is my reply to the hon. member.

With which requirements must this document comply? It must comply with the requirements to which any document that one has to produce normally complies. It must indicate one’s identity and declare one’s right to be where one is. If one visits a country, one’s passport is stamped at the airport. This gives one the right to be in the country to which one has been granted entry.

What is the difference between the new document and the old document?

I want to explain the matter. The choice is entirely in the hands of the homeland governments. The Bill that I am introducing here now, is an enabling measure which empowers them to pilot legislation through their various Parliaments themselves, legislation by means of which they introduce documents for their own citizens. If those documents satisfy us, the requirement that those citizens must have reference books, falls away. Therefore—we must understand one another properly—if a homeland Government does not introduce such legislation and issue travel documents, this provision does not affect it and then the reference book system remains applicable—the hon. member for Houghton is so concerned about the beautiful reference book because it identifies South African citizenship.

There is no difference.

Let us not have any illusions about it. I do not think that the homeland leaders had any illusions about it. The documents that they envisage to serve as identity documents, travel documents or whatever, must contain the necessary particulars and information so as to enable us to apply influx control, before it will be acceptable to us as a substitute for the reference book. If it does not contain that information, it is not acceptable to us and then the reference book system continues to apply, because the Government is in favour of influx control and will implement influx control as long as it is in power or until it thinks it is no longer necessary. If the new document therefore contains the information that makes it possible for us to implement influx control, it will be acceptable to us as a replacement for the reference book. If it does not contain that information, it will not be acceptable to us and the reference book will remain valid. It is as simple as that. In other words, it is a document that the relevant Governments themselves will issue. We shall help them to process it. We shall negotiate with one another as regards what its contents may or shall be. We have not prescribed to them what it should contain; they can make of it what they will. Afterwards we shall decide whether it is acceptable to us as a substitute for the passbook or not. It is essential, however that it must put us in a position to be able to implement influx control. If it is acceptable to us, all the concessions that I have read out, will gradually be introduced for consideration. That is the agreement between us and those leaders. Can I put it more simply than this? This is the whole picture.

There is a very small difference.

The hon. member says that there is only a small difference. The fact remains, however, that they prefer it like this. The hon. member said: “It becomes involved in the whole influx control system and the data bank,” etc. But the fact remains that we want the information to be able to implement influx control. It also means, however, a whole lot of additional advantages—I have already referred to them—for those people. It means that a person no longer needs to have that document on him permanently. It must, however, be available within a distance of five miles so that he can go and fetch it in co-operation with the Police. These are all concessions we have made because we want to accommodate the people. Nor is it we who are being accommodating. It is them and us who agreed on it together. This is the picture as I want to present it to hon. members.

Now I come to the hon. member for Mooi River and his proposal. He says he differs from us. I appreciate the fact that he stated in a nutshell that he differs with us. We may differ from one another, but what are the facts? He says they reject the Bill because it moves in the direction of independence. Have I understood the NRP incorrectly? Is the NRP’s policy not that they are in favour of development in the economic, political and other spheres in the homelands to just this side of independence? Surely that is their policy. That is what the hon. member for Durban Point and Senator Horak say. They are 100% in favour of homeland development, economically and politically, but to just this side of independence. Then surely the NRP should welcome this legislation because it is not independence in itself. It is still only a milestone on the road to the ideal that those hon. members want. Therefore they should now support us. They should accept the legislation because it is not granting independence. I am waiting for a meaningful reply. It is still on the way to their ideal system, just short of independence.

[Inaudible.]

This document does not give them independence. This document is only one of those fine documents on the way to independence that the hon. member’s party accepts.

It is on the way to their being forced towards independence.

No one is being forced towards independence. I have said it umpteen times already. Independence is a free choice by the people, and this system will bring them to just this side of independence. Therefore those hon. members should have supported it. I want to add that the hon. member said that they are in favour of influx control. At least this is how I understood him.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to the Douglas Smit Commission, the Fagan Commission, the Mr. Justice Viljoen Commission, etc. The history of this matter is very interesting. After all, it is a well-known fact that the original Douglas Smit Commission recommended that influx control should be eliminated. And then it was eliminated, but only for a short period. Then it was reintroduced by the old UP Government. Surely this is a well-known fact. They could not work without it. Influx control was then reintroduced. Why has nobody pointed that out? It was deliberately suppressed; and only half of the picture is being broadcast to the world. The other half is suppressed. Surely this is general knowledge. The Douglas Smit Commission recommended that influx control should be done away with, but after a few years—I do not know precisely how long—it was reintroduced by the Smuts Government because it was essential.

The Douglas Smit Commission was a departmental committee, was it not?

I think so. He was secretary to the department in those days under Major Piet Van der Bijl, as Minister of Native Affairs.

I want to explain one more aspect that the hon. member for Houghton raised. That hon. member said emphatically that she telephoned Chief Minister Phatudi. I want to ask the hon. member a very courteous question: Was he the only homeland leader she telephoned?

For the moment, yes, because the others have not even spoken yet.

My problem is that the hon. member mentions Chief Minister Phatudi only. If she had perhaps telephoned the others as well, she might have found that others agreed with the Bill. But now she keeps quiet about it.

I asked him whether he knew what the opinions of the other leaders were.

Then?

He said he thought he knew what the other leaders, opinions were.

Did he then say that more of them do like the legislation? I do not want to be difficult; I am just trying to determine what they said.

And I am trying to tell you what he said. I shall write you a letter.

Order!

How did the hon. member know that she should telephone Chief Minister Phatudi only?

We tried the others, but they were on the border.

Oh, all the others were away? Only he was available? [Interjections.] Are all of them still in the operational area today?

We took them there to show them how we are protecting them.

The hon. member telephoned today. Why did she not telephone the others as well? How did she know that she should telephone Chief Minister Phatudi only and not the others? How did she decide? Did she draw the names out of a hat?

I wanted to check whether the statement he made to the newspapers was correct.

That is fair. I accept it.

I can imagine how uneasy you have been.

I could continue in this vein. This is what we are engaged in doing. However, this is all that I want to say about it. I have nothing further to add.

I just want to react to the speech of the hon. member for Simonstown and reply to his request that we should refer to “Black relations” rather than “Plural relations”. I want to tell the hon. member why I specifically chose this name and did not insert the word “Black”. It is because we are accused both here and abroad of being obsessed with the concept of colour, that we in South Africa are colour mad. Why always Black, or Brown or Yellow? Why must we always make an issue of colour? These are the questions that the world asks us. That is why I did not want to use “Black”. It would have immediately given rise to the world alleging once again that South Africa is so obsessed with colour that they are again inserting the word “Black” in this designation. This is the reason why I chose the present name.

Secondly, colour also always has an emotional flavour, while a word like plural— a completely neutral word—does not have any emotional flavour. In fact, it is a word that advertises the population composition of South Africa to everyone who uses it, whenever it is used. The word immediately says that the South African community is a plural one and not an integrated unitary community, as the world and the Progs would like to believe.

We are all plurals.

In the nature of things the world “plural” is not a noun. Nor is it meant to be one.

I want to conclude by saying that this legislation is essential. It is enabling legislation, legislation that enables the homelands to make their own laws. Therefore it is enabling legislation. We shall recognize the laws that are made, those that are made after consultation with us and in accordance with our recommendations and we shall substitute our legislation in regard to passbooks. For the homelands that do not introduce legislation of this nature, the passbook system will remain. Anyone who has the new document, to our satisfaction, will not have to carry a passbook. Those who are not in possession of the document, to our satisfaction, will have to continue to carry the passbook. It is as simple as that.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—102: Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. R; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; 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.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; (Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. R; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, 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 der Westhuyzen, J. J.N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rossettenville); Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wilkens, B. H.

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

Noes—19: Dalling, D. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; 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.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and A. B. Widman.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I am sure that the hon. the Minister must have wondered on occasions why there is so much widespread concern about this particular Bill. I am sure he must have wondered why there is so much uncertainty and suspicion amongst fund-raising organizations who will come under the control of this Bill. He must surely also have wondered why there is so much opposition to this Bill in this House. I would have thought that the hon. the Minister would have been able to identify the reasons for this if he had approached the legislation from a different point of view. I think that the hon. the Minister tended to be too defensive of the legislation as it stands, rather than being prepared to debate point by point the objections and the difficulties that we raised. I would have thought that the intention of placing legislation of this nature on the Statute Book would have been to bring a degree of order to the raising of funds, an aspect to which we have no objection. I think the intention should have been to bring a degree of enlightened control to the question of fund-raising, an aspect we also would have no objection to. I think, however, that the hon. the Minister should also have attempted to produce legislation which would have, in large measure, gained the support and confidence of the thousands of persons and organizations that would be subject to the control of the provisions of that legislation. I think, however, that in achieving that enlightened requirement for this legislation, the hon. the Minister has failed because even at this late stage there is still a degree of uncertainty, suspicion and opposition to this particular Bill. I am sorry that that should have been so.

I hoped that at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister would have been prepared to see the other point of view and would have indicated a preparedness to make those changes which would have improved this legislation. Unfortunately that has not been the case.

At this stage I just want to deal with a few points because as we progress through the Committee Stage we shall be dealing with the various amendments that have been placed on the Order Paper. One of the very first aspects I should like to deal with is that of the trust and confidence of those hundreds of organizations and thousands of people in this Bill and in the machinery that this Bill is to set up. There is also the credibility that this machinery will have in the eyes and the minds of those people. We said, at the outset, that in order to ensure that confidence and in order to create that credibility, it would have been necessary to set up machinery which would effectively, on an on-going basis, have consulted with the fund-raising industry in South Africa, involving them closely in the setting up of all the controls required so that they could play a full part in the control and direction of fund-raising activities in South Africa. We contended that to establish one person, in the capacity of a director, as the single agent of the Government operating in terms of almost unchallenged powers, which the provisions of this Bill grant him, could not possibly, in the final analysis, achieve the trust and confidence of the people this legislation will control, nor could it give the machinery the credibility it would require.

Tell him we are dealing with the Committee Stage.

We consistently contended that what the hon. the Minister should have done was to have set up a council fully representative of the entire fund-raising industry, all the organizations and the people involved, so that that council could advise the Minister, could draw up the necessary controls, could conduct the affairs of fund-raising and could have executive powers as far as fund-raising was concerned. The hon. the Minister pointed out, however, in his answer to the Second Reading debate, that in terms of existing legislation there is a board and that it was found that the board had certain difficulties in carrying out these powers. The hon. the Minister indicated that that was because no matter how much goodwill there was, that group of people could not possibly be expected to carry out all the executive functions required.

However, I think the hon. the Minister misses the point. I do not say that the members of the council should individually carry out their executive powers; but they should be in control of the carrying out of the powers vested in them in terms of this legislation. I think that in that particular respect the hon. the Minister would then have better legislation setting out better machinery with a greater potential for success than he has at present.

One of the important aspects—I know the hon. the Minister takes umbrage at this being mentioned—is the requirement of involving all the races and of in fact satisfying the requirements, aspirations and ideas of all the races in setting up legislation such as this. It is all very well to say that all the races had an opportunity to make representations to the Van Rooyen Commission, as the hon. the Minister in fact said in his reply to the Second Reading. In addition to that, however, there are the requirements involving all races on an on-going basis. The only way in which that could be done would be by ensuring that other races would also be represented on such a council. One of the most important points I should therefore like to deal with here is the need to have such a council in order to create the trust and confidence and to give this body the representative breadth that is needed to make it successful. One asks oneself why the hon. the Minister finds it necessary to appoint three full-time statutory boards to conduct the affairs of the special funds while, with regard to the entire industry, the hon. the Minister feels he does not need a council but that one single individual will be able to do the job completely effectively in terms of the requirements of the legislation. I therefore move the first, second and third amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 5, in lines 1 and 2, to omit definition (xii) and to substitute:

1. (xii) “Council” means the National Fund-raising Council established under section 3;

1. (2) on page 5, in line 7, after “4” to insert:

1. (3) on page 5, in line 42, after “5(1)” to insert:

This would serve to meet the requirements of the council and, secondly, it would ensure that all organizations that pass the scrutiny of the regional welfare boards and are registered by them in terms of the National Welfare Act will automatically be accepted as fund-raising organizations and will not have to re-register.

Finally, in the time that remains available to me, I should once more like to say very, very directly and very, very clearly that we do not approve of funds from overseas being used for purposes in South Africa that are not completely above board and that are not in the interests of South Africa and its people as a whole. We believe that the provision that applies to funds from overseas is, however, aimed specifically at organizations and people in South Africa who attempt to and in fact do assist the victims of the Government’s ideological legislation. The hon. the Minister himself, throughout his reply to the Second Reading, spoke about the danger of certain funds being applied in South Africa, about subversive organizations and about funds being applied in South Africa in order to destroy society. We say quite clearly that, if funds are used for subversive purposes, the hon. the Minister in fact should apply such a provision. Indeed, it is a fact that there are many other Acts that other Ministers could apply, particularly the hon. the Minister of Justice, to see to it that no funds are used for subversive purposes. However, the hon. the Minister has not satisfied us on this point. He has not removed from our minds the suspicion that this provision is aimed at controlling, cutting off the life line of, smothering and killing organizations of which the Government does not approve politically but which in every other way operates above ground and completely legitimately. That is a considerable worry we have with regard to that particular provision. For that reason I also move the fourth amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (4) On page 5, in lines 69 to 72, to omit subsection (2).

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the first three amendments moved by the hon. member as they are in conflict with the principles of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, could I address you on your ruling?

Yes, the hon. member may do so.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Minister introduced the Second Reading of this Bill, he referred on a number of occasions—to be absolutely accurate, he did so on two specific occasions—to his understanding of the principles of the Bill. He described the two major principles of the Bill as—

Nowhere in his speech did he say that the appointment of a director was a principle of the Bill; rather, he said that this is a mechanism which enables the two keystones—I think that is the word he used—or foundation stones, of the Bill to operate. Therefore I would like to ask for your ruling as to whether indeed the first three amendments moved by the hon. member for Bryanston are out of order?

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Pinelands had read the long title of the Bill, he would have seen that the principles of the Bill are contained in the long title. The first principle is the appointment of a Director of Fund-raising. I therefore think that the hon. member’s submission is altogether wrong.

Order! I have had time to consider this very carefully. I even took the trouble of reading the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, and I am afraid I will have to abide by my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, the clause which is now before the Committee is the definition clause. As is normally the practice, hon. members of the Opposition parties are given a little latitude to express their points of view in regard to the Bill. However, the principle has been accepted at Second Reading and we accepted that principle on the basis that there were aspects of this Bill which we felt would improve the position as far as the control of fund-raising from the public is concerned. We also indicated that there were certain aspects in regard to the method employed which required further thought and consideration. Consequently we, from these benches, will also move amendments which we hope will improve the Bill.

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

The purpose of these amendments is firstly to alter the name of the person responsible for fund-raising from the Director of Fundraising to the Registrar of Fund-raising. This amendment is moved on the basis that the word “Director” does give the impression that a director will, in fact, be directing fundraising whereas if one studies the provisions of the Bill it would appear that his function would be more that of a registrar than a director of fund-raising. The directing of fund-raising will be left to the particular organization which is raising funds from the public. Clause 3, which is still to be dealt with, deals with the question of the appointment of a Director of Fund-raising, and this indicates that he will be responsible for the registration of fund-raising organizations. Therefore he assumes the role of registrar. I think some of the consternation which has been expressed by certain organizations appears to stem from the fear that there will be interference in the method by which they are appealing to the public for funds. Their fears are therefore based on the fear that where one has a Director of Fund-raising this person could interfere to a very great extent with the methods that they employ as far as fund-raising is concerned over and above the other provisions which are provided for in other clauses of this Bill. In addition to this the organizations are accustomed to the fact that organizations raising funds from the public have in the past been subjected to registration as welfare organizations. It has always been accepted that this function will be performed by the Registrar of Welfare Organizations as embodied in the 1965 National Welfare Act which is now to be repealed as far as the section of that Act dealing with fund-raising is concerned. Such a person is then designated as the registrar and he deals with the registration, deregistration and all the other matters appertaining to the registered organizations. My appeal to the hon. the Minister is therefore to consider this amendment in the light of creating a post which is already recognized by a large number of people and by the public generally, namely the position of a registrar. I feel that this continuation of the term “registrar” will in some way give people greater confidence in this proposed legislation. We know that the provisions of this Bill regarding the Registrar of Welfare Organizations go a good deal wider than the 1965 National Welfare Act. In spite of that fact, principally this officer’s position will be that of a registrar who will ensure that welfare organizations are registered with him and he will of course also consider other aspects concerning fundraising organizations.

The fourth amendment of the hon. member for Bryanston seeks to omit subsection (2) of this clause which reads—

The object of the hon. member for Bryanston is to delete that subsection. We in these benches fail to understand why the PFP is so anxious to delete that subsection. That would mean that South African organizations which are required to register as fund-raising organizations and are raising funds from the public within the Republic, would be subject to the controls of the proposed legislation. An organization which is soliciting and obtaining funds from outside the Republic, however, would be excluded from the provisions of this Bill.

We are opposed to the Bill in toto.

That is an interesting remark, because it means they are also opposed to any form of control whatsoever.

What about the 1965 Act?

It is very interesting to note the position in regard to the 1965 Act, because hon. members keep on referring to the 1965 Act The hon. member for Houghton, who was in the House at the time, of course opposed the 1965 Act at Second Reading, opposed several clauses during the Committee Stage and opposed the Third Reading of the Bill. Those hon. members keep on referring to the 1965 Act, but in actual fact the hon. member for Houghton moved an amendment, during the Second Reading stage, to the effect that that Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

The PFP moved exactly the same amendment to the provisions of the National Welfare Bill which was discussed earlier on. At Second Reading of this Bill they moved:“ That the Bill be read this day six months”. They opposed the National Welfare Bill at Third Reading as well. As the hon. member for Bryanston says, therefore, they are opposed to this Bill in toto. We cannot accept that, because we believe that it is necessary to rectify certain shortcomings and, if one studies the report of the Van Rooyen Commission, one finds that there have been certain shortcomings. Although we agree in principle to the fact that control is necessary, as I mentioned earlier on when I first addressed the House, we have certain points to raise in regard to certain other clauses of the Bill when we reach that stage. We are dealing with a definitions clause now, however, and we have before us an amendment of the Official Opposition who wish to delete subsection (2) in order to allow organizations, which are receiving funds from overseas, to be precluded from the provisions of this Bill. We in these benches are not prepared to accept such an amendment and will certainly vote against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston. I should like to reiterate what I said earlier on, i.e. that the hon. the Minister should give consideration to the designation and the position of the Director of Fund-raising and to use the term “Registrar” to ensure that many of these people will then have a clearer view of the fact that the Registrar is responsible for the registration of fund-raising organizations. People are accustomed to that term, and we in these benches therefore believe that the hon. the Minister should give serious consideration to that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I was interested to hear the hon. member for Umbilo referring to the fact that I had opposed the 1965 Bill.

Your colleagues kept on referring to it.

It is absolutely true. I did oppose it and the hon. member knows why I did so. First of all it was not a “this day six months” opposition; I asked that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee …

I said so. The same goes for the National Welfare Bill.

Let me finish. I gave very good reasons why …

Order! I gave the first speakers of the different parties the opportunity of speaking widely on the Bill. However, the hon. member must confine herself to the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I was replying to something which the hon. member …

The hon. member must confine herself to the clause.

For the sake of accuracy, I should therefore like hon. members to look for themselves to see what I did in 1965 and why I did it. What is interesting is the fact that what is being done here is exactly what I requested, i.e. the separation of the Welfare Workers Bill from the National Welfare Board Bill.

But you opposed the initial legislation.

Yes. For very good reasons; they were lumped together. I am now talking about the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Bryanston …

Only the one?

Yes. Only the one; that is the only one that interests me, to be quite honest.

What a horrible thing to say to him!

Now really! Why do you not get up and debate sensibly instead of making these ridiculous remarks. The whole attitude of the NRP on this Bill absolutely astonishes me. We have here a Bill which has the most far-reaching consequences and goes counter to every normal, accepted principle of control of welfare organizations and fundraising, and yet…

What clause is this, Helen?

… the hon. member sits there hee-hawing like a goat. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must confine herself to the clause.

One of the major changes being introduced by the Bill is the concept that money which has been collected overseas will be deemed to have been collected in the Republic of South Africa. The hon. member has moved an amendment in this regard, and I support it wholeheartedly because, like the hon. member for Pinelands, I see right through this provision. There is no subterfuge really. It is as clear as can be to anybody who has the will to see. The idea is to block funds coming from overseas to provide legal defence for people who are accused of certain crimes in this country for which there is little popular support, the object of the funds being to see that these people get proper legal defence. I know this because of speeches which have been made by the leader of the Justice group of the NP, the hon. member for Waterkloof, who gave very straight statements both to the Citizen and the Financial Mail, statements in which he made it clear that he and his party were dead against this kind of money coming into the country.

It is not true.

I have the newspaper clippings of the interviews here. The hon. member can read them if he wishes, but I have not got the time to read them out now. Then we also had the hon. the Minister of Justice who made an absolute point of telling us in the House that he has the strongest objections to these funds coming into South Africa. According to him it is not because he does not want people to be defended—oh no!—but he does not want money to come into South Africa from overseas. How he imagines that any resources in this country would be sufficient to provide the enormous funds required for the defence in these security cases, some of which go on literally for years and years before they are brought to finality, is beyond me. One hon. member had the gall to suggest that legal aid is available to everybody in South Africa. That, of course, is just not true. First of all, pro Deo defence is certainly provided in every case where the punishment may be a capital punishment. However, it is quite untrue to say that legal aid is available to anybody else. I have here the last report of the Legal Aid Board which makes it very clear indeed that indigence is, in fact, the major claim for any help. The report states that the means test of the Board, by which indigence is established for the purposes of the scheme, was determined after due consideration of the standards of living. If one is White and single and earns more than R140 per month, one cannot get free legal aid in this country. If one is an unmarried Coloured who earns more than R105 a month, one cannot get legal aid either and if one is an unmarried African who earns more than R95 per month one is excluded from legal aid, except under very special circumstances, and believe me, those circumstances have to be very special indeed. If one is a married man one may, if one is a White, earn up to R280 per month, if one is a Coloured one may earn up to R210 per month and if one is an African, one may earn up to R190 per month. I want the hon. members of the House who are members of the legal profession to tell me what sort of legal defence could possibly be obtained by people earning, say, R200 per month. It is ludicrous, particularly in cases where people are brought to trial on security charges, because these trials run on month after month and year after year. The Treason Trial took something like four and a half years.

What is very interesting to me, is that legal aid for inquest purposes is specifically excluded. In other words, if the Biko family had wished to retain … [Interjections.]

There is a new song!

It no doubt leaves you cold as well. The Biko family could not have employed counsel if there had not been funds coming in for legal aid from whatever sources abroad. [Interjections.] Why not?

Why did it not come from inside the country?

Why should it? If the money is available, why should it not be provided? Who cares as long as those people get defence?

There is no objection to it…

There are going to be objections to all sorts of things under this Bill. I shall tell the hon. member what it is all about. If he reads clause 29 in conjunction with clause 1(2), he will know what I am talking about.

I know what you are talking about.

Exactly. All that this is about, is that the Government does not want to come into open confrontation with the churches. It does not want to declare the Church an Affected Organization. That is what this is all about—no more and no less. Therefore, in this very unsubtle way the Government introduces in this so-called welfare Bill a clause which has absolutely no relation to welfare whatsoever. It has one objective and one objective only and that is to stop legal aid for people in security cases and to stop the sort of representation the Biko family was able to afford at the inquest. That is the simple truth of it. I am therefore extremely pleased to have the opportunity of registering my personal protest against this, because I have a great deal to do with people who are involved with the Government’s actions in one way or another. They come to me for assistance when members of their families are locked up or their families are left without support. As a result of that they require the sort of help they can only obtain from outside.

Do they only come in the night?

They come in the night just as members of the Special Branch only come in the night, although not to me, but to these families. I believe everybody is entitled to legal defence. Hon. members on that side of the House have forgotten their own past. They have forgotten the rebels in their own ranks in times gone by, in 1914 and in the 1939 to 1945 war when people were locked up and legal defence was provided for them. Then there were no objections when legal defence was provided. I want to remind hon. members that their own past should in fact awaken them to the very basic essential that everybody in this country should be entitled to the provision of first class legal defence.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the hon. member for Umbilo for his support of clause 1(2). Since the first, second and third amendments by the hon. member for Bryanston have fallen away, only the amendment by the hon. member for Umbilo remains. The amendment by the hon. member for Umbilo provides that the word “director”, as it appears in this Bill, should be replaced by the word “registrar”. The hon. member argued that people have now become used to the term “registrar”, because it is encountered in the existing Act and that, as he has said, he regards the task and the function of this official as merely the task and function which a registrar normally has. I should like to say to the hon. member—unfortunately one must go somewhat beyond clause 1 in referring to the task and functions of the director—that the registration function of the official concerned is basically described in clause 5(1). Clauses 4(1 )(a), 5(5), 6(1), 7(8), 7(9)(a), 8(1), 8(2), 8(3) and also clause 9, however, refer to other extensive functions of this official—functions, tasks and duties which one would definitely not regard as those of a registrar. I therefore believe that the hon. member for Umbilo does not feel very strongly about his own amendment. It merely concerns a designation, and that merely because he feels that “director” implies that this official may try to direct when it comes to fund-raising. The hon. the Minister made this clear during the Second Reading. At issue here are a wider task and a wider function than that of the registrar as we have known it, and this Official is therefore called a director so that it should not be misleading, and because indeed we want to see this person as someone who will be able to streamline and expedite the machinery of the Act. I am therefore really sorry that we cannot accept or support the amendment by the hon. member for Umbilo.

However, when it comes to amendment No. 4 by the hon. member for Bryanston, we find that it had become clear by the Second Reading that the Official Opposition was basically opposed to this particular subsection. There we found that the Official Opposition, through the hon. member for Bryanston, but ultimately through the hon. member for Pinelands, took the field. In a roundabout way, the hon. member for Pinelands put it that if it were to happen that the Ford Foundation were to make a donation towards a meritorious cause, they would have to register and the Ford Foundation would have to make its books available to the director.

In spite of an explanatory interjection by the hon. the Minister, the hon. member persisted in saying that. It does not matter that the hon. member thereby displayed his ignorance or his perversity. What does matter, however, is that the hon. member even went so far as to quote from the Bible. I want to refer to the unedited version of his speech in Hansard of 8 June, where he said— where he said—

I cannot agree more with that hon. member. It will probably be a long time before I agree so wholeheartedly with the hon. member again. However, that is the problem which we have with the credibility of the proposals and the amendments of that hon. member and of his party. A pro deo advocate is good enough for the murderer, for the man charged with homicide, and for the rapist, as he has indeed said. He has correctly said that we should visit the prisoners and that these people need assistance. I agree with him. Always—and the hon. member for Houghton has just said so—they are only concerned about the so-called political prisoner. That is precisely our problem with that party. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke stated very clearly that the World Council of Churches had donated R1,5 million to the organization Asingani. It is curious to note what happened to that money. It was used, among other things, for legal aid in South Africa, but also for the funeral of Steve Biko. Mr. Chairman, do you know of any funeral of any Black man, Brown man or White man paid for from those funds? Do you know of a single one? No, Sir. It is only done where there is political gain. They preach one thing, but they practise another. Let me just ask the hon. member for Houghton—and with this I shall conclude— why we want control over the funds which enter South Africa from abroad. Let me spell it out. The World Council of Churches sends money to terrorists in Swaziland and in Mozambique. Now those hon. members of the PFP must listen carefully. An innocent White policeman and an innocent Black policeman travel in a Landrover. Four of those terrorists who have been trained with the aid of the money supplied by the World Council of Churches, cross the border and are picked up by these two policemen in their Landrover. What do they do now? They explode a hand grenade between those two people. Do you know what? Hon. members of the PFP allow themselves to be used to condone the World Council of Churches also being permitted to send money so that the defence of those four terrorists—in South Africa—can be paid for. That is what this is about. That is why the Government should obtain control over these things. For that reason, we cannot support the amendment by the hon. member for Bryanston. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston has made a rather long introductory speech. In it, he referred to the amendments he intended moving—amendments which you, Mr. Chairman, ruled out of order. I shall therefore refer very briefly to the amendments, which are now not really relevant, and also to the points which the hon. member made in regard to them. The absence of a board has been criticized.

Order! The board is not relevant now.

As you please, Mr. Chairman. However, I do regret not being able to answer the hon. member on that. He made a few wild statements to which I should really have liked to react.

All that is involved here now, is the motion that clause 1(2) be deleted. Clause 1(2) concerns the question of financial contributions from abroad—contributions which, for the purposes of this Bill, are also regarded as contributions. In this connection I should like to address a word to the hon. member for Houghton.

†This particular clause serves the purpose of ensuring that the same type of control with regard to disclosure and accounting will apply to contributions received from outside South Africa as will apply to the control of moneys received from within the country. Of course, clause 1(2) will have certain implications. It will have implications for organizations collecting money, whether it be moneys collected outside or inside the country, organizations collecting moneys for purposes which are stated to be legitimate purposes, while, in effect, such moneys are being used for illegitimate purposes. It has an effect on such an organization, and the main test which should be applied with regard to this legislation and also with regard to the question of foreign contributions, is an easy one. The first question which must be answered, is whether the money is collected for a lawful purpose. It does not matter from where that money comes, whether it is from outside or from inside South Africa. Secondly, if that money is collected for a lawful purpose, the question remains whether it is appropriated for that lawful purpose. That is the test that the hon. members should apply for themselves.

*I am not prepared to discuss every example the hon. members can now quote and react to it and give them legal advice as to whether it has a lawful purpose or not. Surely they know the law. In fact, they have legal experts in their midst. It is not my task to tell them when a purpose is lawful or unlawful. We all know the law, and we all know that the Government has not hesitated to define subversive activities as unlawful activities. For that reason, I can give the hon. member for Houghton the assurance that if contributions are used for subversive activities, it is for an unlawful purpose. If that is the case, that does, therefore, have implications. So the hon. members must decide for themselves what is lawful and what is not. They must decide that in the light of our total system of laws, as supplemented by common law. It is a matter which they must make out for themselves. Then this clause ought to present no problems for them.

I have no problem with that!

Let me mention a few unlawful activities to the hon. members of the PFP. I am convinced that they will not be in favour of money ostensibly being collected for welfare purposes and then being used, for example, to promote an unlawful strike. Surely they are not in favour of that. Nor can I see why they are worried about it if we want to clamp down on an organization which ostensibly receives money for welfare purposes and then utilizes it for political youth leaders’ courses. Nor can I see why they are worried about it if we want to clamp down on an organization which ostensibly obtains money for welfare purposes and then uses it to stir up young Blacks and incite them to commit arson.

Who does that?

These are things which have happened in South Africa in recent times.

Who did that?

You know that better than we do.

I do not want this to degenerate into a debate on these thousands of things which can go wrong and which have gone wrong. It does have security implications, but it is essentially there because it will result in a type of discrimination if we do not subject foreign money to the same controls as money collected inside the country. For that reason, I cannot accept this amendment.

The hon. member for Umbilo advocated a registrar instead of a director, and said that the designation “director” causes confusion. I think we must squarely face the fact that this official has a fairly wide discretion, and that the designation “registrar”—and I do not want to derogate from any registrar, because there are important registrars who perform very important functions—is traditionally not essentially linked with an official who exercises discretion. He applies a whole series of directives, checks whether a form has been correctly filled in, and thereafter the registrar, as such, lacks the same discretion in respect of various matters. I think the designation “director” indicates to us that we are concerned here with an office which has more scope than that which is normally associated with the concept of “registrar”.

I want to tell him frankly that I have given it very serious thought and that at one stage I almost wanted to accept his amendment. However, after I had again read through the Bill, I felt that we should rather use the designation “director” to indicate in that way that we are not concerned with a post that is purely that of registrar. Nevertheless, I want to join with him in sounding a warning that nobody should labour under the misapprehension that this official is going to say what should be done with money and what should not be done with it—in other words, he must not interfere in the spending of money which has been collected for lawful purposes. The control is merely aimed at ensuring that the money is raised for a lawful purpose, and after it has come in, that it is spent on that lawful purpose. His control does not entail his being able to determine what welfare organizations should be selected, what needy persons must be assisted, what sports club— for example the table tennis club or the tennis club—should enjoy priority, or decisions of that nature. His function is essentially of an administrative nature, but it is somewhat wider than that of a registrar. For that reason, I cannot accept his amendment either.

Amendment moved by Mr. G. N. Oldfield negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

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

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, we have not proposed an amendment to clause 2 because we are totally opposed to it and intend voting against it. The reason why we intend voting against this clause is that, though it only consists of three lines, they are three lines aimed at striking a cool blow at organizations connected with fund-raising. The effect of this is to bite the hand that feeds the welfare organizations in South Africa and that has contributed so much to the R135 million that is collected by the public annually in South Africa. It is an unwarranted blow to the people concerned. The clause is worded: “No person shall collect contributions unless …”. “Person” is not defined in the Bill. We must therefore place the ordinary construction on “person”, which therefore includes individuals, associations, organizations, companies and everyone one can think of. That is the legal construction placed on “person”. No one can therefore collect contributions without more ado.

As regards “collect” the definition provided is a rather wide one. It covers—

On the question of collecting contributions from the public, I asked the hon. the Minister in the Second Reading whether it is the intention in terms of clause 2 to stop anyone collecting contributions from the public specifically or from anyone. In the definition of “collect” the words “from the public” are used in a specific sense in that the definition provides that “collect” means “soliciting, accepting, collecting or obtaining contributions from the public”. However, this is followed by an alternative, viz. “or attempting so to collect or obtain”. In the alternative the words “from the public” are omitted. I am therefore somewhat confused as to what is intended. Is the legal construction to be placed on this that it refers specifically to collecting from the public?

Then there is the question of “contributions”. As far as that is concerned, there is again a very wide definition of “contributions”, which means not only movable or immovable goods and money but also “anything that can be exchanged”. One cannot even exchange goods. We have therefore the widest possible interpretation of “person”, “collect” and “contributions” and besides that there is the question of whether this is specifically from the public.

There is no objection to welfare organizations, which are normally registered as welfare organizations and which can automatically be registered as fund-raising organizations, collecting funds and to there being a form of control over them. However, we are now seeking to control not only welfare organizations, but service organizations as well. This includes organizations such as Rotary, Round Table, Lions, Rapportryers, etc. One can also mention the Broederbond and the Freemasons. Those organizations are now going to be controlled in a sense. I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister thinks that these service organizations, which give freely and voluntarily of their own time without expecting any sort of remuneration, or even thanks for that matter, will then be exposing themselves to having to do what the hon. the Minister requires of them? Will they, for instance, have to register in terms of clause 2? Does the hon. the Minister think these service organizations will want to place themselves in the position that they will have to submit reports, returns and financial statements, as is required in terms of clause 12(3), and be open for inspection? Does he think they will want to place themselves in the position of having to submit them in terms of clause 30(6) to inspectors who can come along with search warrants and look at their records? Does he think that these organizations and the people serving them are going to submit themselves to criminal sanctions as proposed in clause 27?

Order! Clause 27 is not under discussion.

With respect, Sir, I am merely interpreting what happens under clause 2.

The hon. member must confine himself to clause 2.

Clause 2 provides that they cannot collect money unless they are registered and I am pointing out for what reasons they might not want to register in terms of clause 2. For the purpose of thz argument, the hon. the Minister has in fact stated that the organizations to which I refer need not register under clause 2 because temporary facilities can be given to them in terms of clause 6. That is, however, not the answer because the temporary facilities are granted for a period not exceeding 90 days. These organizations were not in the habit of collecting for only 90 days. They collected for a regular period; they collected for a year.

Whereas the Van Rooyen Commission recommends legislation to control the collection of funds in respect of the organizations which regularly collect such funds, the hon. the Minister by means of this Bill will be controlling everyone from top to bottom, from A to Z, anyone who is in anyway involved, directly or indirectly, in collecting funds, with the widest possible interpretation being placed on how and where they collect. However, there is a category in which one may include service organizations in South Africa and perhaps not only such organizations but also other bodies comprising people who want to get together. What do they want to do? They only want to make a small contribution of money to help people who are in need. We are stopping them from giving relief to people who are in need, either directly or indirectly. For that reason we are rigidly and totally opposed to the provisions of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is repeating his argument and he is doing so in strong language, because he says: “We are biting the hand of people who want to help others.” He also says: “This is an unwarranted blow to people who want to do good.”

†The best counter-argument I can offer him is that in terms of the existing legislation a welfare organization that registers must render statements. It must therefore do what this Bill also requires registered organizations to do. Such an organization is now subject to inspection in the same way as inspection is required in terms of this Bill. That did not influence any welfare organization not to register. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the welfare organizations regard their W.O. number as an asset well-knowing that they are subject to the same controls in terms of the existing legislation as they will be in terms of this Bill. Therefore I firstly want to make the point that registration and the duty to render statements is not a hardship.

I did not say it was.

That hon. member did say it was. We can understand English and we can read the hon. member’s Hansard tomorrow. He regarded this as a hardship. I am arguing—and he apparently now agrees with me—that mere registration and the duty to render statements of accounts is not a hardship in itself. That brings me to the second point, namely, why should only one type of organization be required to subject themselves to control? The only effect that this Bill will have in this regard will be to extend the control to all people who deal with public money and who deal with money which they get for a specific purpose as a donation. There is really no hardship involved and I want to repeat once again for the record that no organization who wants to do good will in any way be hindered by this Bill. They will, as a matter of fact, get proof that they are properly registered and that they are willing to subject themselves to control. In this way they can tell the public: “You can trust me because there are controls and your money will be looked after.” I therefore cannot accept the situation and I also feel that this provision is the very heart of the Bill. Clause 2 sets out what the Bill is all about and I cannot see how the hon. member can at this late stage argue against control.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to say with the greatest respect to the hon. the Minister that he did not listen to the argument. He either does not want to hear or he does not hear. [Interjections.] I want to say very clearly that there is no objection to a welfare organization who does welfare work being registered as a W.O. and being registered as a fund-raising organization carrying on that work. I stated that very clearly. Why does the hon. the Minister turn round and say that I do not want them registered? That is exactly what I said. What I am objecting to is an organization which is not a welfare organization. The service organizations such as Rotary, The Round Table, Lions and organizations of that nature are not welfare organizations yet we are forcing them to register and expose themselves to the rigours presented by the whole Bill itself. That is what we are objecting to.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member once again referred to the rigours, but there are no rigours in this Bill. The Bill merely consists of ordinary, innocent clauses for normal control purposes. I want to answer the hon. member by putting a question to him: If organization A, a welfare organization, collects R10 000, organization B, a sporting organization, collects R10 000, and organization C, a service organization such as the ones he described, collects R10 000, why on earth does he say—I have listened to him very carefully—that organization A must then be controlled, but not B and C? There is no logic in his argument.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the appointment of the Director of Fund-raising and has three subsections. Subsection (1) deals with the appointment of the Director of Fund-raising who—

Subsection (2) goes much further and states the following—

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

I wish to motivate this, because the hon. the Minister indicated during the discussion on clause 1 how he sees the role of the Director of Fund-raising. This subsection goes further in that the Director, in his discretion, can “take such steps as he may deem necessary or desirable to regulate or to co-ordinate the collection of contributions”. This is over and above the powers he already has conferred upon him in terms of this legislation. It does appear that the Director is virtually given a blank cheque so that he can use his discretion in virtually any manner whatsoever when dealing with fund-raising organizations or with people connected with fund-raising. It states here that he can also co-ordinate or regulate the collection of contributions. This particular subsection therefore gives the Director discretion over a very wide field indeed and I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what he has in mind regarding the role the Director should play over and above the powers and functions he has in terms of this legislation. There are other clauses dealing with the role of the director and, according to those, he has extensive and very wide powers. Subsection (2) gives the Director even greater powers, enabling him to act beyond the provisions contained in the various clauses of this Bill. In terms of the provisions of one clause it is also possible for the Director of Fund-raising to delegate his powers to other members of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. It would appear that, with the delegation of those powers, the discretion that will be used for regulating and co-ordinating the collection of contributions, extends even further. As I have said, these are extensive powers that are to be granted over and above the powers that are already embodied in the Bill and for this reason we would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s explanation why it is necessary for the Director of Fund-raising to have these additional powers.

Mr. Chairman, the real, factual reason for the insertion of this subsection is that it has been found in the past that when a particular occurrence takes place—let us say a flood—one suddenly finds quite a number of individuals who take the lead to form a small organization and then proceed to collect for this very good cause. We found that when somebody can successfully co-ordinate the efforts of these people it often results in a much more effective action. That is my basic reply to the hon. member. Clause 3(2) gives no powers to the director if he does not succeed in co-ordinating. In other words, the provision merely states that the director has the power to take the initiative to co-ordinate. If he does not succeed in co-ordinating, there is nothing in clause 3(2) which says what he can do. The only sanction which he can then apply, is to refuse registration to a particular group in terms of another clause. Apart from that he has no sanction in terms of clause 3. The clause as such therefore does not empower him to do anything if it is not something positive. It does not give him power to cut off anybody’s head in any way whatsoever.

Why is it written into the Bill?

It is written into the Bill because we want to state our positive intention that the Director should, apart from registering, also try to limit the number of organizations in an area if better results can be obtained by proper co-ordination. We want to spell it out that we want him to take the initiative. So, it is basically a very, very positive provision. I want to repeat that there is no intention of closing organizations down, and the director cannot do so in terms of this clause in any way whatsoever.

Amendment negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I shall not move the first amendment standing in my name on page 245 of the Order Paper, but I do move the other three amendments standing in my name on the same page, as follows—

1. (1) On page 7, in lines 26 to 30, to omit paragraphs (b) and (c);
2. (2) on page 7, in lines 31 to 33, to omit subsection (2);
3. (3) on page 7, in lines 42 to 44, to omit paragraph (a).

My argument concerning the first amendment, i.e. to omit clause 4(1)(b) and (c), is very brief. It does seem to me unreasonable and unnecessary to have these two paragraphs. In the Bill, for instance in clause 4(1)(a), the director is given considerable powers, but despite that the hon. the Minister also introduces clause 4(1)(b) to provide that any organization applying for authority shall publish in the prescribed manner a notice containing the prescribed information. It seems to me that this is redundant, and therefore we propose the omission of this paragraph. Clause 4(1)(c) is a consequential provision and therefore I do not have to argue that any further.

The second amendment which I have moved proposes the omission of clause 4(2) which reads—

It does seem to me that what we are encouraging in this subsection is a kind of snooping operation.

Nonsense.

Just keep quiet, or rather go for a cup of coffee! [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that in this provision the hon. the Minister is once again asking people who may have any kind of objection or any difficult relationship with a person or a particular group, to—

I really do not understand why this should be necessary. If the application is made to the Director, the Director, together with his staff and his inspectors, can decide exactly what needs to be done, whether or not it is a bona fide application and whether it should be granted. However, I believe this is yet another unnecessary provision. That is why I say it is really totally unnecessary and therefore we do not see why we should support it.

We have moved an amendment to omit subsection (4)(a). I immediately want to concede that one of the main reasons why we have put this amendment on the Order Paper, is that I am really not sure what the paragraph means. If we are wrong, I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister will take great delight in telling us what it is all about. However, it seems to me that we have a double punishment here. Would the hon. the Minister please tell us whether this is an indirect reference to an affected organization and whether it is in fact trying to close every single door so that those organizations which will then be forbidden to receive financial assistance from outside the country, will now not be able to receive money from inside the country? I really do not understand it, and that is why I am genuinely asking the hon. the Minister to tell us why he feels it is necessary to have this provision in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply to the last question first. One often finds that an organization wants to collect money for a particular institution the establishment and registration of which is done in terms of another law. A nursery school, for instance, must be registered in terms of an ordinance. This subsection merely stipulates that before an organization can be registered as a fundraising organization with the object of collecting for this nursery school, they must produce proof, if required, that the nursery school is properly registered in terms of the relevant ordinance. That is all it stipulates. If for one action one needs permission from two different sources, the one must come before the other. Somebody must make sure that in both cases the proper procedure is adhered to. This is the object of this provision.

I am sorry I also cannot accept the other amendments and I want to motivate why I cannot accept them.

*In the first place, provision has already been made in the existing legislation for the procedure of advertisement and objection. My department informs me that no complaints have ever been received in this regard. If we were to accept this amendment, we expect to be flooded by objections. I cannot understand that the hon. member can object to this from his philosophical point of view. It is a purely democratic process. It affords the public and other organizations who may have vested interests, the opportunity to express an opinion to the director on an application before the director before he decides. It is democratic, because vested interests may be involved. I want to say to the hon. members that there are two groups. One group is the general public. They may feel, in a particular area, that they are being overwhelmed to such an extent by organizations that have already registered, that their peace and quiet will be disturbed if another organization were to commence activities in that area. I am giving an extreme example now. The other interest groups consist of other organizations that may have taken steps and spent a lot of money to launch a campaign and then suddenly find that another organization is collecting in the same town for the same or a related object, with the result that the public in that town is overloaded. That is why a democratic process is necessary. I cannot accept that there can be objections to the fact that other interested parties, groups and individuals have the opportunity of expressing their views before authority is granted. Therefore I cannot accept the amendments.

Amendments (1) and (2) moved by Dr. A. L. Boraine negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (3) moved by Dr. A. L. Boraine negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I shall not be moving my amendment to clause 6.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

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

1. (1) On page 9, in line 50, to omit “writing” and to substitute “written authority”;
2. (2) on page 9, in line 55, to omit “writing” and to substitute “written authority”.

If one looks at this clause, one sees that it deals with the granting of authority to a person for the collection of contributions for or on behalf of any fund-raising organizations, registered branch or holder. One knows that a person is liable to a severe penalty if he collects contributions which are not in accordance with the provisions of this proposed legislation. Therefore it is important that a person who has been given authority and permission to collect funds for such an organization should have written authority. The wording as it now stands in this clause merely refers to a “writing”, but if one refers back to some of the clauses with which we have already dealt, one will see that, for instance in clause 4, specific mention is made of the granting of written authority. The purpose of my moving this amendment to both lines 50 and 55 is to make it clear that a person must be in possession of a written authority in order to collect contributions on behalf of such an organization, registered branch or holder.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.