Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to make a statement. I trust that you will allow me to provide an oral explanation in a few places.

With reference to the statement that I made to the House on 8 May 1978 and with reference to the directive given to the Public Service Commission in pursuance of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, I now wish to inform the House that—

1. 1. The Public Service Commission has completed its inquiry into the affairs of the Department of Information; and
2. 2. The Cabinet has accepted the following recommendations of the commission: That—

1. (a) the Department of Information be abolished and a Bureau for National and International Communication created in its place;

2. (b) the post of Secretary for Information be abolished and a post of Director-General of National and International Communication be created in its place on a grade just lower than that of a departmental head.

   As a result of the abolition of the post, the Secretary for Information, Dr. E. M. Rhoodie, has requested leave to retire from the Public Service as from 1 July 1978. His request was granted by the commission;

1. (c) the Bureau not be granted departmental status, but that accountability for the organization be entrusted to its Head;
2. (d) all functions of the Department of Information, with the exception of the secret actions, be transferred to the new Bureau; and
3. (e) the requirements of the establishment of the Bureau be investigated in detail after it has been given the opportunity to develop its existing establishment fully and it is possible to determine its future requirements clearly.

1. 3. Furthermore the Cabinet has decided that a proper evaluation shall be made of the confidential projects so that it may be decided which of the projects should be continued and to which department such projects should then be channelled.
2. 4. It is not easy to find a knowledgeable person to make such an evaluation, but I am pleased to be able to say that Gen. H. J. van den Bergh, who is retiring at the end of June as Secretary for Security Information, has agreed to make himself available for this purpose. Gen. Van den Bergh will be appointed and will operate in terms of the Bureau for State Security Act, but the projects will not become part of the normal activities of the Bureau for State Security, except if it should be decided that some of the projects should be channelled to it. In this regard you will allow me, Sir, just to say that Gen. Van den Bergh could and should have retired three years ago, but that he stayed on at my special request and was appointed under contract.
3. 5. If it should become apparent from the evaluation investigation that the knowledge of the then former Secretary for Information (Dr. E. M. Rhoodie) is indispensable for the purposes of a proper evaluation, he may, if he is available, be employed under contract on a temporary basis for the duration of the inquiry. Hon. members will note that all the heads of the Department of Information who were involved in these actions will then have left the service, viz. Mr. Les de Villiers, Dr. D. O. Rhoodie and Dr. E. Rhoodie. Consequently it may be necessary, in order to make a proper evaluation, to make use of Dr. E. M. Rhoodie’s services on a temporary basis.
4. 6. The knowledgeable person to whom I referred in my previous statement, is Mr. L. Reynders, a former member of the staff of the Auditor-General and at present a member of the staff of the Bureau for State Security. He will be transferred to Gen. Van den Bergh’s staff. Mr. Reynders’ investigation has not yet been completed, but to date he has not yet discovered any offence that requires legal steps to be taken against any person. I may just say that at the time I did not mention Mr. Reynders’ name because I wanted to make sure that he was not disturbed at night. However, I disclosed his name to the Opposition. It was therefore not a question of hiding it from anyone.
5. 7. In the meantime and until such time as the post of Director-General is filled on a permanent basis, Mr. A. van W. Schoeman will be seconded to serve in this post.

Under which Ministry will the new bureau fall for control purposes?

Initially the new bureau will remain where it is at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

When the Committee reported progress on 14 June, Schedule 2 had been put, upon which amendments had been moved. I put the amendments.

Amendment (1) negatived and amendment (3) dropped.

Amendment (2) negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the end of a lively and intense debate on this Bill. I think that standpoint was put against standpoint—sometimes very forcefully—without a decisive answer being obtained in the House, in the nature of things, and I am afraid, to a large extent, without one side be able to convince the other of its standpoint. Perhaps it is unavoidable because the real test of this taxation as it is contained in the Bill before us will only take place when it is put into operation …

Order! Hon. members must please try to speak more softly.

I appreciate it, Mr. Speaker. Only the test of time will prove whether we were correct in our criticism of the Bill or whether the hon. the Minister and his supporters’ defence of the Bill was justified.

One point of interest came up and that is that although we criticized the proposed tax on four important points and although hon. members opposite felt that our fears were much stronger than could be justified by the true facts, there was nevertheless no difference between us on the fact that this measure does contain potential difficulties. Naturally, the Government reminded us time after time that the necessary funds had to be obtained in order to cover Government expenditure, that it was difficult to obtain more money from existing sources of taxation and that it was therefore essential for a new source to be added. It would be unreasonable of us on this side of the House not to concede that it is essential for the hon. the Minister to obtain tax from wherever he can. However, it should be noted that as a community and as a country, we are becoming increasingly involved in the difficult position of finding adequate funds to do everything that we want to do. Furthermore it must be borne in mind that we shall have to curtail our expenditure in some way or other or seek other sources apart from taxation to finance it. This is not, however, a suitable opportunity to proceed along that way. We nevertheless believe that something like this will be necessary in the near future.

As far as the Bill is concerned, we remain convinced that it is an unfortunate measure in the present time, which places a new tax burden on the shoulders of the less privileged part of our community in particular. With all respect, we are not convinced by the hon. the Minister’s argument that this legislation is going to be anything but inflationary. We fear, although we hope that we are wrong, that administrative and practical problems are going to occur on a scale which will make the hon. the Minister’s birth pangs worse than he now believes they will be. For these reasons we shall also oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to take exception to the reply of the hon. the Minister to the Second Reading last night when he indicated that he understood this party to have been against sales tax in principle. I thought the case I had made out for sales tax was a lot better than the one the hon. the Minister himself had made out. That I would say quite frankly.

But you voted against it.

If one has to repeat all the arguments that one used in the Second Reading debate in the Third Reading, then I really despair of this Parliament. I said very distinctly to the hon. the Minister that there were certain areas of application of the tax where we differed. We are perfectly entitled to differ and we are also entitled to move amendments. I despair of this House and of those agricultural economists, like the hon. members for Bethal, Carletonville and Smithfield, because I thought that they who think like farmers, would at least be able to understand the point of my amendment. What I was trying to say to the hon. the Minister is that he faces the problem of having to tax food by 4%. I have tried to indicate to the hon. the Minister that there is a way in which food prices can be reduced so that the 4% tax on food can be implemented at a lower level. If we do not take with the one hand and thereby adding to the input costs, we can save, on the other hand, the amount allocated for the subsidy of food. Surely this is a constructive proposal that merits consideration by the hon. the Minister. Hon. members opposite who are farmers, can surely see that if one can succeed in reducing the input cost of farmers, the food is going to be available at a lower cost level and the hon. the Minister will then be able to gain because he will not have to put money in by way of subsidies. This method of subsidizing food is, in my view, an inefficient way of controlling and bringing down the price of food for the poorer sections of the community. For that reason I have attempted, throughout the session and also now in the amendment, to be positive and to be constructive about the matter. If the hon. the Minister insists, as he has now insisted, that this tax of 4% must apply right across the board, including to basic foodstuffs, then he owes it to the country to investigate our suggestion that where there are imports—he used this word yesterday—which increase the input costs of farmers, he should consider taking them off so that the plateau level of food, at which he is going to add the 4% tax, can come down. This is the only way in which he can help the poorer sections of our community, given the fact that he now has the power to levy a tax of 4% on the basic foodstuffs of the people.

We accept the principle of the sales tax, and I went to considerable lengths, by referring to the vertical distribution and the horizontal equity of a tax like this, to illustrate how such a step could help to bring direct and indirect taxation into balance. I can therefore say that we support the principle of the sales tax. Perhaps I worded our amendment wrongly. Perhaps we should have said that while we accept the principle of a sales tax, we differ as to the application of the tax. I want to make it quite clear, however, that it is in the hon. the Minister’s own interest to admit the fact that this party is supporting him in the introduction of a sales tax into the fiscal structure of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the end of this debate and the question that I ask myself is: What is the effect of this tax going to be on South Africa? Seen from the Government’s point of view, there will be a new tax structure with a very broad basis. The present sales duty, which has always caused an escalation in the price of the end product to the consumer, is going to disappear. The consumer will therefore now be much better off in view of the new sales tax of 4%. As a result of the income which the Government is going to obtain from this, the hon. the Minister will be able to reduce the tremendously high marginal rate applicable to the higher income group. In other words, a person in the higher income group will no longer have to pay 70% of his income in taxes. This is going to mean that professional people, of whom we have a shortage in South Africa, will be encouraged to do more work and to work harder for South Africa without having to pay such a tremendous percentage—it is approximately 70% at the moment—of their marginal income in tax. We are always hearing the complaint that we do not use these people properly in South Africa, and as a result of the taxation system that we had in the past, one could not always blame these people if they said that they did not want to work any longer. With the new taxation system, however, we will be able to utilize more of their services to a greater extent.

Let us take a look at what would have happened if the amendments of the Official Opposition and the NRP had been accepted. They were opposed to the Bill in principle and if the House had therefore accepted what they wanted, it would have meant that the hon. the Minister would not have had approximately R350 million to R400 million in revenue this year. We would therefore have had to cease certain services planned in the budget immediately. What could we have stopped? For instance, we would not have been able to continue paying pensions to pensioners. If we had implemented those hon. members’ policy, no pensioner would have had any income, because the necessary funds would not have been available. The very first thing that would probably have gone by the board, is the subsidy that the hon. the Minister gives the consumer. This subsidy would have fallen away, because where would the income have had to come from to pay for it? This would have meant that the consumer would have had to pay much more for his end products. Looking at it from this point of view, I think the Opposition were fairly irresponsible with their proposals.

A new tax system is now going to be introduced, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to make use of the Press, television and all other communication channels in order to put this tax to the public in its true perspective. I think it is very necessary, for instance, for a regular programme to be broadcast on television from today to the end of the month, and even after that, in order to explain the various facets of this new taxation to the public. I am pleased the hon. the Minister of National Education is in the House. Perhaps he can talk to the SABC. Perhaps a programme can be broadcast for farmers on one night, a programme for traders on another and a programme for the consumers, etc. In this way the way in which the tax works can be spelled out very clearly. We must make the consumer in South Africa understand that he is not being exploited as the hon. members of the Opposition want to make out, but that the new tax is to his benefit, because as a result of this new tax there is going to be more employment because the capital-forming community will be able to establish more enterprises, produce more, etc. In this way unemployment will be prevented. We must also make the public of South Africa understand that sales tax is not only being introduced to increase the Government’s revenue so that it can start projects. Whatever the State does, is to the benefit of South Africa and in the interests of the consumer, of every individual in our country. I am very sorry that hon. members of the Opposition are always trying to take political advantage of this type of legislation by alleging that the Government is greedy—as the hon. member for Yeoville expressed it. This is not true. Every cent that the Government collects, is spent for the sake of the community. It is used for conservation, security and the maintenance of all types of services in South Africa.

I am very pleased that we have practically finished dealing with this legislation. I want to thank the hon. the Minister and the department heartily once again for the tremendous task that they undertook and carried out so successfully.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that the department is already working on an information service to keep the public as thoroughly informed as possible about the new tax and how it will be applied. I want to give the hon. member for Sunnyside this assurance.

I am not as pessimistic as the hon. member for Parktown about the administration of the new tax, as I also tried to explain yesterday evening. I think the hon. member and I differ on this matter. I hope—in fact, I feel quite sure of this—that my view is correct. The department and its advisers have, over the months, given so much careful attention to the new tax and its application that I feel quite happy about this aspect.

†I am glad the hon. member for Mooi River clarified his position last night. Obviously I had to judge his position in the light of his amendments, which sought to reject the Bill. That was at Second Reading and I clearly understood it as a rejection of this new tax. I did say that in my opinion the hon. member had raised some very good points in his speech—that is undoubtedly so—but I still would have thought that this explanation he gave this morning might have been clearer if he had supported the Second Reading of the Bill and had then moved his amendments in the Committee Stage.

You would not have accepted them anyway.

I should just like to say that as far as food costs and the question of farming inputs are concerned, we have leant over backwards to allow as many inputs into farming activities free of tax as we felt we could possibly allow without raising difficulties affecting neutrality of the tax and leaving ourselves vulnerable to criticism on the grounds of blatant discrimination.

At Second Reading I asked whether an inter-departmental committee might be appointed to investigate things such as customs and excise and other imposts which might have a bearing on that.

The question of the possible impact of it on food costs is obviously a very important matter. The hon. member will agree with me that the cost of food is not only determined by production costs and by the farmers costs, but also by many other factors. We all know what distribution costs can mean today. However, in regard to production, which is the farmers actual part in the whole process, we have really tried to grant as many inputs free of tax as we could. If the hon. member, any farming undertaking or the S.A. Agricultural Union would like to make representations along those or any other relevant lines, we would be more than willing to give early and very careful consideration to any such representations, because I agree entirely that what we have to do is to see to it that food costs are as little affected by such a measure as possible. I readily accept that approach and should like to give this assurance here.

*I thank hon. members for the very thorough manner in which this measure has been discussed by both sides of the House. It is a very important measure—there is no doubt about that. I think that the responsible attitude adopted in this House towards a measure such as this, can only augur well for the measure.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—100: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson,J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rencken, C., R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; 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, H. J. D.; 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.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

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

Noes—23: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Rossouw, D. H.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wiley, J. W. E.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, because the amendments in clauses 7, 9 and 11 all correspond to amendments which we proposed and recommendations which we made, we are delighted to be able to say that we shall support them at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment which is now before us, an amendment allowing for the appointment of a deputy chairman, has our support. We are pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has accepted this amendment. However, in connection with this very matter we moved an amendment during the Committee Stage to the effect that the chairman and deputy chairman should be elected by members of the regional board. If I could have done so, I would definitely have moved an amendment now to the effect that the deputy chairman should be elected by the members of the regional board instead of being appointed by the Minister. I would be grateful, therefore, if the hon. the Minister could tell us why he wishes to see that the deputy chairman is appointed and not elected by the members of the board.

Mr. Speaker, the matter concerning the election or appointment as it relates to this body was fully debated during all three stages of the Bill. If I remember correctly, there was even a division in this regard. For the same reasons I advanced as to why the chairman is not elected, the deputy chairman cannot be elected either. Surely it is logical. I should like to add that I accepted the amendment effected in the Other Place after serious consideration of the arguments advanced by hon. members of the Opposition during the discussion here in this House. This amendment is therefore the outcome of the constructive criticism which they expressed in regard to the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments to clauses 9 and 11 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move amendments Nos. (2) to (7), printed in my name on the Order Paper, now Nos. (1) to (6), as follows—

1. (1) On page 9, in line 66, to omit all the words after “shall,” up to and including “prescribed” on page 11, in line 5, and to substitute:

1. (2) on page 11, in line 12, to omit “and in a prominent position”;
2. (3) on page 11, in lines 14 to 19, to omit paragraphs (b) and (c);
3. (4) on page 11, in lines 20 to 22, to omit subsection (7);
4. (5) on page 11, in lines 57 and 58, to omit “on particular premises”;
5. (6) on page 11, in lines 59 and 60, to omit “on such premises, and”.

There is no need for me to delay the Committee with a long explanation of why I am moving these amendments. I do hope the hon. the Minister will accept them sympathetically, because I believe they will improve the Bill. In connection with the first amendment I have moved—that is my second amendment on the Order Paper—I just want to point out that it deals with official fundraising organizations. It is an attempt to give further protection to the public so that they will know exactly what is happening and who is collecting on behalf of what organization. This has indeed to be done in a professional way. Where reference is made in the clause to one of the official languages of the Republic—either English or Afrikaans—I merely ask that that reference be deleted because if one takes, for example, the Inanda School, a private school for Black children, in Natal, the following problem could arise. If they were having a fund-raising campaign using an organization consisting of professionals—something which they have done in the past, and are doing now—the widest community to which they will appeal is obviously not only those who speak English or Afrikaans as a first language, but also those who speak Zulu.

It does seem to me that it is not necessary to limit this in the way we are doing. We should rather simply say, as I have indicated in my amendment, that if the organizer or the fund raiser is requested to do so, he must give all the details. I have indicated those details in my amendment.

I think the wording on top of page 11 is a little unreasonable. I refer to the words “as well as any other person who is present there at”. It does seem to me unnecessary that a fund raiser should not only have to tell people who ask him, but also anybody who just happens to be present. He has to go around telling people, who may be just bystanders or in the company of the person, that he is soliciting for funds on behalf of the organization. I therefore suggest that we omit those words as well. I think this speaks for itself.

The second amendment which I have moved—this is amendment No. 3 on the Order Paper—deals with line 12 on page 11. The object of the amendment is to have the words “and in a prominent position” omitted. I do not understand why it should be in a prominent position. We already have the provision that the person who collects contributions shall state clearly that the collection is for remuneration. Either it is clear or it is not clear. I cannot see why we should have the words “and in a prominent position” as well when the Bill already reads “states clearly”.

I think the omission of those words will improve the Bill; they are redundant in my opinion.

My next amendment seeks the omission of paragraphs (b) and (c) in lines 14 to 19 on page 11. Paragraph (b) reads—

Here again I do not see why this should be necessary. It seems that once again one is using a sledgehammer. Paragraph (c) reads—

On page 11, lines 20 to 22, I am suggesting that we omit subsection (7) which reads—

In terms of clause 29 itself it seems to me that this becomes redundant as well. It seems to me an overdoing of the whole process as though one is trying to close every door, and not merely with a single lock, but every door has to be doubly locked as well. I do not understand why one has to be so tortuous here.

I have moved two further amendments on this clause. The first one seeks to omit “on particular premises” in lines 57 and 58 on page 11. Here one thinks merely of a mobile collection. In other words, if one is moving around in connection with a bazaar. If one is moving from house to house amongst one’s “gemeente” and one is asking for cakes, it cannot be restricted to particular premises. One is making the appeal, one is soliciting for a bazaar. One may be an “ouderling” or the “dominee”, and one is moving around. Therefore this cannot be restricted to particular premises unless I misread the way in which it is outlined.

The proposed omission of “on such premises, and” which is sought in my last amendment is purely consequential.

Mr. Chairman, if I accept these amendments, I shall be making the application of the clause in practice extremely difficult. I do not want to discuss each of the minor points raised by the hon. member in every detail, but allow me to make a few observations. In the first place he complained about the language question, about the fact that mention is made here of both official languages. However there is nothing to prevent another language being added as well for the sake of those who might not understand the official languages. The opposite is also true. For the application of the legislation, and for the convenience of those who perhaps do not understand Zulu or some other Bantu language, it is necessary for good order and the smooth functioning of this entire matter that use also be made of the official languages.

The hon. member had another complaint. He said that even when functions do not take place on particular premises, each one need not have an authorization. Obviously he does not agree with this subsection, which is aimed at the ordinary type of bazaar where someone is in control and at which a fundraising inspector can determine who the person is who does have proper authorization to exercise control over other people at a place or on premises that may be determined. He mentioned the example of an elder who went from house to house collecting cakes. In the first place I think he is using a rather wilful example here, because he is involving the Church in this matter. As he knows, we can discuss the question of the exemption of the Church and the precise scope of that exemption under clause 33. Therefore I am not going into the question of elders, etc., etc. now.

That was just an example.

Let us suppose, however, that it has to be a person who does require an authorization. Surely he need not carry a thick document or a book with him. All he needs is a list. He must have an authorization. What is an authorization? An authorization is the normal document with which everyone usually collects. There is a list, at the top of which is stated: “The bearer of this document is duly authorized …” This is followed by a list of particulars and a signature. It is his proof that he has a lawful directive from an organization which is authorized to collect.

It is, however, limited to a particular premises.

The concept “particular premises” relates to a bazaar or a function, and one does not hold a bazaar from house to house. However, one does collect from house to house.

That is right.

The principle of the Bill is in fact that if one is collecting, and one asks an individual, a company or a business for money or goods, one must produce one’s authorization to do so. At a bazaar it will surely be absurd if every woman making pancakes on a primus stove behind the counter also needs an authorization. We do not want to be absurd, and therefore we are saying it is not necessary. It is different when, in isolation, a house to house collection is made. A crook can get to hear that a collection is being made in a specific town for a particular function. He can also get into the act and pretend to be collecting, although he has no authority to do so. Then he can keep everything he has collected for himself. Consequently, to afford the public an opportunity to determine a person’s bona fides, such a person must have an authorization on him. That is all that is involved here. All the person need have on him is a list.

The hon. member also complained about subsection (7) and asked that it be deleted for he said it was an unnecessary duplication of clause 29. Clause 29 described the powers of the Minister. This subsection clearly indicates, however, that in case clause 29 has come into operation, no person may issue a document which gives out that clause 29 has not come into operation. This is a logical provision, and is necessary for the operation of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Minister to reply to the point I raised in connection with the amendment I moved when the debate on clause 7 was adjourned, the amendment to omit the word “writing” and to substitute the words “written authority”. I should also like to obtain clarity from the hon. the Minister about subsection (11) in terms of which a very wide field is indicated. Subsection (11) reads—

Then it details certain matters, viz. “any bazaar, sale, competition, entertainment, exhibition or other function”. I should like to point out that from time to time charity sports functions such as charity matches, especially cricket matches, are held and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the competitors taking part in any such function would fall within the purview of subsection (11) of this clause. Would it only be necessary for the person organizing the charity cricket match, for example, to get the permission and sanction of the fund-raising organization for which he is organizing that function, or will the actual persons taking part fall within the purview of subsection (11) of the clause?

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not having replied to the hon. member’s amendment to omit “writing” and to substitute “written authority”. The sole reason why we have used the word “writing” here, is that we wanted to make a clear distinction between the actual authority required from the director and the document a person must have on him when he, as a result of the authority granted by the director, gets an authority from a fund-raising organization. Because the words “written authority” are used in so many different contexts, we wanted to make it clear that this is something different from the original written authority.

I take it that the organization concerned must be clearly indicated on that writing?

That is right. The writing will have to make it clear for which organization the funds are to be collected. I think it would be preferable if the purpose of the particular fund-raising campaign, if there is a specific purpose, should also be stated. In addition, I think it should be indicated that the bearer of the writing is properly authorized by the organization concerned. I think it would also be correct to say that it would have to appear on that writing that the organization concerned is a duly registered fund-raising organization. I think it would be wise for the fund-raising organization to state that because it will prove that they are acting within the law.

As regards the second point the hon. member raised I can put his mind at rest. The idea is that, when a function takes place, whether it be a sports function, bazaar or whatever and irrespective of whether that function takes place on a sports field, in a hall or anywhere else, only one person needs to be in possession of written authority and that is the person in charge of the particular function.

Mr. Chairman, with the leave of the Committee, I withdraw my amendments. I am satisfied from the hon. the Minister’s explanation that the word “writing” goes further than the words “written authority”.

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

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

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

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

1. (7) An appeal from a decision of the appeal committee shall lie to the relevant division of the Supreme Court.

I shall not be moving my first amendment. The amendment I have moved aims at a basic and fundamental principle of justice in South Africa. It is, indeed, a well-tried principle and I am sure the hon. the Minister subscribes to that basic principle. The appeal committee, which will consist of a magistrate and two persons appointed by reason of their special knowledge, is accepted as far as this Bill is concerned.

However, where an organization which is registered or an organization which is not registered is aggrieved by that decision they are left only with the decision of the appeal committee. It is imperative that they should also have the right to go to the Supreme Court on that decision. If we do not make this provision the only time they can go to the Supreme Court is when that committee acted mala fides, and as you know, Mr. Chairman, that is very difficult to prove. In view of the Second Reading debate there is an even more cogent reason why we must have an appeal to the Supreme Court. This is that this does not only have national implications, but also international implications.

That is an old story which you know does not hold water.

The reason for that is that we are now dealing with funds that come from overseas. We are now dealing with funds which are intended for organizations which the Director in his wisdom may decline to pass and he may even not register the organization. It may also be funds for organizations which are not subversive. Since these funds may well come from overseas, it is important for our international sponsors who do send money to South Africa to know that the appeal lies not with the committee, but that the appeal lies to our Supreme Court whose judges are held in the highest esteem in the world. In any event, according to the fundamental principle of the law even the decision of a magistrate is appealable and a decision by a judge is also appealable to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Chairman, let me first deal with the new “cogent” reasons advanced by the hon. member. This clause has no international connotation whatsoever. There is no question that this Bill now exerts control over overseas companies and persons as such. Anybody who wants to accept funds in South Africa must register in terms of this Bill. In other words, there is no question of a donor having to apply for anything to the director. It is the person who accepts the donation who must have permission in terms of the Bill and he may appeal in terms of clause 10 as it now stands.

*If we have to talk, however, about the question of appeal to the courts, it is so that this is a question that we have already exhausted in this House in the discussion of various matters. There is an element of obstinacy here because hon. members persist in not seeing and recognizing the distinction between administrative law and normal legal decisions that courts take in the normal course of events. We are dealing here with a matter relating purely to administrative law. The hon. member says it is well known that there are appeals against the decisions of a magistrate and even those of a judge. I can refer to hundreds of examples where decisions relating to administrative law were taken and against which there is no right of appeal. These are important decisions and concern matters that are just as important, and even more important, than these. After an administrative decision has been taken, there is often no right of appeal. In this case, however, there is a right of appeal to an appeal committee with a jurist at the head. The audi alteram partem rule is properly complied with because full reasons must be given. It is a fair appeal, and what is more important, it is an appeal that has been tested over the years in respect of this very matter. There has always been such an appeal committee in terms of welfare legislation. There have been a few appeals and the decisions have been accepted. There were no complaints that there was unfairness. I think that this is a fair appeal and that it complies with the highest demands that one can make from a legal point of view in the sense that there is a right of representation, that the person who feels aggrieved must be fully informed as to the reasons and that he has a right to be heard. That is why I cannot accept this amendment.

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

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, I move amendments Nos. (1) and (2) printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 15, in line 64, to omit “or his assets” and to substitute “assets”;
2. (2) on page 15, in line 65, after “transactions” to insert:

In view of your previous ruling, Sir, I shall not move amendment No. (3). The motivation for these amendments is simply that we want records kept of money received and expended. The two amendments must therefore be read together. They are relevant only to the collection or disbursement of contributions. We do not want these returns to be made in each case, but only in a case where there is a special collection and when the measure is relevant to that collection. That is all there is to it.

If a fund-raising organization also has other activities, activities that are not connected with its fund-raising functions, such an organization will surely be able to organize its activities in such a way that there are two corporate bodies and that its fund-raising, which it will then separate from its other activities, will take place under another name and within the framework of another company or corporate body. A fundraising organization that also has other activities, is therefore free to organize itself in such a way that whatever does not concern the fund-raising aspect of its work, is not reflected in its books. Over and above this it is also so that one must read each one of these clauses against the background of the entire Bill. I am quite convinced that if the director or anyone else meddles unnecessarily with private matters that have nothing to do with fund-raising, anyone, any organization or company will be able to obtain a mandamus from the Supreme Court that there must be no intervention in matters that have nothing to do with what is regulated by this Bill. The hon. member is therefore chasing up spectres unnecessarily. I cannot accept his amendment.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

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

Mr. Chairman, situations often arise where organizations close down and where someone must make a decision as to the funds. It is chiefly for such cases that the powers embodied in subsection (4) will be required. We must be able to dispose of the funds if the organization that collected them is not able to dispose of those funds. In this regard I should like to give hon. members the assurance that, in the application of this clause, I shall definitely take note of the desires of the people involved and that I shall definitely not force my own will upon them. In the first place the clause also binds the Minister, in applying the legislation, to spend the money for the purpose for which authorization was granted. We can therefore not go beyond that objective. Only if that objective is realized and there is still money over, must a decision be taken on it. Surely it is logical that if money is collected for a specific purpose and some of the money remains, one will channel the remaining money in such a way that it will be utilized for a similar objective in the same direction.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it would not be logical for money which cannot be used for the purpose for which it was collected, to be returned to the donors?

Mr. Chairman, the Bill determines that this is what one must do in the first place. Sometimes, however, one deals with funds that, for instance, were collected in the form of 20-cent coins. The money could for instance have been collected by way of a street collection. In such a case it is surely impossible to return the money to the donors. That is why I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the dissolution of a fundraising organization and a registered branch. I wish to refer specifically to subsection (2) which reads—

The matter I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister is that when the disposal of an organization’s assets are considered, he should take into account the aims and objects of the organization concerned. In clause 13, with which we have just dealt, it is clearly stated that the objects in respect of which the temporary authority was granted, will be taken into account when considering the disposal of certain funds. In clause 14 we are dealing with the dissolution of a fund-raising organization and it is quite possible that some of these organizations could have vast sums of money. Their assets could be quite considerable. People could for example have made contributions and money could have been collected for an organization for a particular aim and object, and therefore I should like the hon. the Minister to give consideration—perhaps he could consider an amendment in the Other Place—to ensuring that the aims and objects of an organization which is being dissolved will be taken into account when steps are taken to dispose of the assets of such an organization.

Mr. Chairman, the provision in clause 14(2) only comes into operation when it is impossible to dispose of the funds in terms of the constitution of such a fund-raising organization. Clause 14(1) determines expressly that the provisions of the constitution of such an organization must be complied with, and only if this is impossible, for instance because the constitution may be vague and confusing, or if it is perhaps an old organization that does not have a constitution at all, do the provisions of subsection (2) come into operation. I want to assure the hon. member that it is our policy to try at all times to utilize the money in the direction and for the same type of work for which it was originally collected.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15:

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

We are now dealing with chapter II, which has to do with the Disaster Relief Fund, the S.A. Defence Force Fund and the Refugee Relief Fund. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that a “full-time member”, i.e. a member of a board appointed on a full-time basis in terms of section 17(3), shall not be somebody in the public service, but someone appointed from outside. The reference to clause 17(3)(b) in my amendment is really contingent upon a further amendment which I shall move when clause 17 is put.

Mr. Chairman, I had the impression that the hon. member was speaking on clause 17 and not on clause 15.

Mr. Chairman, I shall repeat what I said. I said that the reason why the amendment to clause 15 referred to clause 17(3)(b) was that paragraph (b) relates to another amendment to clause 17.

I want to indicate at this early stage that I shall not be prepared to accept the amendment to clause 17. Since the amendment to clause 15 emanates from that to clause 17, in the nature of things, I cannot accept it either.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, in view of the rejection of the amendment to clause 15, I shall not move my amendment to clause 17.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22:

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

Mr. Chairman, unless he motivates it we must oppose the hon. the Minister’s amendment on clause 22. It is interesting to see that when the hon. the Minister does introduce an amendment to his own legislation, it is not necessarily an improvement…

I can explain it quickly.

Then I shall wait until the hon. the Minister has explained it.

Mr. Chairman, clause 22 is now being amended, by means of the amendment that I have moved, to the extent that subsection (9) is being deleted. I am doing this because the Auditor-General has pointed out to us that section 45 of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1975 provides that the Auditor-General’s report on the accounts that are audited by him, is laid upon the Table in any event and that this subsection is therefore redundant. This is the only reason for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the hon. member has explained the matter, because if he had not explained the matter, because if he had not explained it to us, we would have opposed his amendment. The impression was created that the hon. the Minister wanted to take a step that would deny Parliament the opportunity of looking at the accounts and the report. If, however, the position is as the hon. the Minister has now said it is, we shall accept it.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation regarding the deletion of subsection (9). Subsection (2) of this clause deals with the four funds which are now going to be amalgamated to form the Disaster Relief Fund, namely the National Relief Fund, the Fund for External Relief, the National Mine Disaster Fund and the Central Flood Disaster Fund created in 1974. In terms of this clause, these funds will in future be known as the Disaster Relief Fund. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the four funds which are to be combined into the Disaster Relief Fund have been administered entirely by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and whether any aspects concerning these four funds can now be correlated with the aims of the Disaster Relief Fund. There are four funds, some of which are old funds and have been in existence for a considerable period of time. However, invariably when a fund is formed there is some authority appointed over it. In regard to the financing of these funds, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether these funds are going to be administered entirely by and will be the responsibility of his department.

Mr. Chairman, the reply to the question of the hon. member is “yes”. It was the responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Other departments also had an interest in the matter, for example the Department of Community Development, but basically the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions controlled these funds. Throughout the history of these four funds, however, the private sector was brought into the control and always played a very definite role. However, the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions financed them from the organizational point of view, and obviously the funds received contributions from the public as well during disasters. From a structural point of view, however they were financed by the department. All four of the funds fell under the control of this department.

Is the private sector in agreement that these funds be combined in this way?

Yes, and in future they will also serve on the board and continue to play a very important role.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29:

Mr. Chairman, clause 29 is a clause that reflects the spirit of this legislation and I want the hon. the Minister to listen carefully to what we say about this clause because it incorporates a tremendous amount of powers and control measures into the legislation. In spite of that the Minister wants to assume the further right, in spite of all the provisions in this Bill, to decide that money cannot be collected by any person or organization for any purpose for which the hon. the Minister has not given his approval. This reflects power-hunger on the part of the hon. the Minister and the Government to exercise unlimited power over the fund-raising organizations. I believe it is very unfortunate that this clause has been inserted in the Bill. The hon. the Minister is inclined to assure us every time that organizations do not have to feel concerned about all the powers incorporated in the Bill. The hon. the Minister also says that he will not exercise the powers that he already has unless the actions of the relevant organizations do not have his approval. There is a constant and tremendous threat to organizations that raise funds, a threat imposed by the Minister in terms of this legislation, and as a result the reorganizations can be unnerved and feel threatened at all times because of this type of provision included in the legislation. It may have a detrimental effect upon the activities and the spirit existing in an organization. We therefore want to express our strongest objection to this clause. We feel it is a far-reaching provision and that the hon. the Minister does not need it at all in order to exercise his duties and responsibilities in terms of this legislation and that it is simply putting further excessive powers in the hands of the director and his staff, powers that can be used with the sole purpose of crippling organizations if they do not have the approval of the Minister, and hindering these organizations and their functions unnecessarily. We still suspect that the hon. the Minister has incorporated this power in the legislation in order to use it against organizations that are acting in a bona fide manner, and doing the work for the purpose for which they exist, but which the Government may not approve of. We therefore take the strongest stand against this clause and will vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches are also concerned about the very wide provisions of the clause before us. We indicated at Second Reading that this clause caused us a great deal of anxiety. It seems as though we are creating, throughout this legislation, comprehensive administrative machinery to deal with organizations that are raising funds from the public. We believe it is necessary to have strict control when funds are being collected from the public. However, with all the control that is embodied in this legislation, with the very wide powers given to the director, one would envisage that the Minister would be satisfied with such a basis of control, knowing that all organizations wishing to make application must do so through the correct channels. One would also have thought that the hon. the Minister would be satisfied that such organizations are subject to control by the director. Furthermore, elsewhere in this legislation provision is made for vast powers of inspection as well. However, these matters are embodied in the Bill. People are being given an opportunity to appeal against the decision that might be taken by the director.

Now this Committee is being asked to pass a clause providing that the Minister, quite arbitrarily, without giving any reasons whatsoever, may prohibit certain organizations or persons from collecting funds. As the clause now stands, the Minister can at any time publish in the Government Gazette a notice prohibiting any organization or any persons from collecting funds from the public. There appears to be no recourse whatsoever against such a decision by the Minister. Without being personal in any way—the hon. the Minister is still a new hon. Minister, and we know that he is a competent and an efficient person—I must state that we do feel that the basis of this clause is too broad in that it provides that the Minister—that could be any future Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions as well—can prohibit the collecting of funds while not necessarily possessing all the relevant facts in connection with a specific person or organization, meanwhile depriving them from any recourse against any such decision by him.

Of course, provision is also made for the Minister to change his decision, but it still means that the Minister will have absolute power to merely publish by notice in the Government Gazette at any time that a person or organization is prohibited from collecting funds from the public, or even from being granted a temporary authority to collect funds in certain instances.

We listened very carefully to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate. However, we still feel that there seems to be no real justification for bringing into this legislation a clause of this nature. The hon. the Minister has indicated that it might be necessary in certain instances to take expeditious action against a specific organization. There is, however, going to be a full-time director, and additional staff is to be appointed to deal with the whole question of fund-raising. That staff will be able to investigate matters and to undertake a full inquiry into any fund-raising matter. People will also be given the opportunity of stating their case to the director. As we have said, this clause gives us a great deal of concern in that such wide powers are being granted to one person, a person who will, at his discretion, make any decision he deems fit. We feel that it is only right—taking into account the other provisions in this Bill—that the hon. the Minister should reconsider the position created by clause 29, taking into account that he has sufficient powers, through the director and through the rest of the machinery which is created by this Bill, to take whatever steps might be necessary. Such steps could be taken expeditiously and effectively. Obviously, if a case of emergency arises, and if we know that the security of the State is at risk, we agree that expeditious and effective steps should be taken. There is no doubt about that. We do not in any way dispute such a possibility. However, we believe that there is sufficient provision made in the other clauses of this Bill for matters to be dealt with expeditiously. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will reconsider the provisions embodied in clause 29.

Mr. Chairman, the powers that are granted in terms of clause 29, are basically required so that expeditious action can be taken in cases where circumstances make expedition essential. The Van Rooyan Commission made an express recommendation in this regard.

The hon. member for Umbilo alleges that there are adequate powers for the director and that adequate machinery is being created in the rest of the Bill for taking action. If he takes another look at clause 8, he will find that the director has to follow certain procedures. He must make an inquiry and follow a whole series of steps. Every hon. member can surely think of circumstances that make expeditious action essential. Surely, when the authority of the director was obtained, a misrepresentation could have been made with the result that the public could be exploited terribly. A dishonest objective can be aimed at as a result of the misrepresentation that was made when the authorization was obtained. If something like this happens, expeditious action must be taken. I think hon. members will agree with me that there must be machinery for expeditious action.

When we had to decide about this, we were faced with a choice: Should we give this power to the director or should the Minister have this power? We preferred to give the power to the Minister for the simple reason that the Minister is responsible to Parliament. Provision has therefore been made for publication to take place in the Government Gazette. If it had been decided to give the authority to the director, we would probably have had an even stronger argument from hon. members. Then they would have been able to say that this was an official who was not responsible to Parliament and who could simply do something like this administratively. That is why we decided on the Minister and not on the director. The fact remains, however, that someone has to have the power.

The power that is being granted to the Minister, is of course not unqualified. It is clearly provided that the Minister must convince himself that it is in the public interest to use the power. If the Minister should act mala fides in this regard, perhaps the hon. member for Bryanston, when they come into power one day … [Interjections.] He may still be young enough then—perhaps around 90 years old—and become Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions.

I shall then go and report Thor Communicators.

If the Minister should act mala fides, he will be able to be called to account before the court in terms of the normal review provisions. In addition there is a specific prescription that the Minister must convince himself that it is in the public interest.

The hon. member for Bryanston’s argument that we can now close down any organization that we do not like, was fully dealt with by me in a previous debate. It is true that the test for action by any Minister of State should never be: What is in the interest of the Government? If the Minister has a discretion conferred upon him in terms of a law, it is very clear that his discretion must be applied in the framework of: “What is in the interest of South Africa?” “What is in the interest of the security of the State?”, if it falls within that sphere.

I do not want to hide the fact that this clause also contains specific implications for organizations that collect money for subversive purposes under false pretences. Of course there is provision in terms of our security legislation, but hon. members must bear in mind that in this case there is no question of radical action like the confiscation of money. The powers that are being granted here, mean that the continued collection of funds must be put to a stop. The legislation does not provide that I can prohibit an organization; all I can do is say that the organization cannot collect funds. This is the power that is being granted to me in terms of clause 29.

I want to put it clearly that if one looks at my powers in terms of this clause, one finds that they are not nearly as wide as the hon. member tried to allege. I can only stop an action. I cannot put anyone in gaol in terms of the clause. I cannot ban any organization or deny it its right to exist. All I can say, is that it can no longer collect money from the public.

But you know that finishes them off. That is sophistry.

It does not finish such an organization off. It does not deny it the right to continue to exist. Later on it can always apply in the usual way for re-registration. One can then reconsider the matter and try to rectify it by means of negotiations if incorrect information was provided. If correct information was provided, if information was provided that there was serious fraud under the cloak of legal fund-raising, then it is true that, in the words of the hon. member: “They must be finished off.”

†Then it is my duty to finish them off. I have a solemn duty towards the public to safeguard them against malpractices of all sorts.

Let the courts do it.

The powers I am adopting are for the purposes of doing this. Having said that, I want to emphasize that I do not plan to use the provision in this clause very often. I do not, however, ask the hon. member for Bryanston to feel re-assured because of this assurance. We know that he does not take our word very seriously. Fortunately, however, the voting public does accept our word when we give it. This clause will only be used in exceptional circumstances where expeditious action is necessary. Under circumstances where no harm can be done by the application of clause 8, obviously we would prefer to allow the director to carry out a proper investigation in terms of the prescriptions set out in the relevant clause.

We shall see.

We feel that this clause is necessary. In future we can debate any decisions with the hon. member for Groote Schuur because I will report them in the Government Gazette and he will be free, during any debate in Parliament, to stand up and call me to account.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—104: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. 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, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; 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 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.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

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

Noes—17: Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. B. Widman.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 30:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This amendment just serves to correct the English text to bring it into full accord with the Afrikaans text.

Mr. Chairman, I have a large number of amendments to clause 30 printed in my name on the Order Paper. I assume that the first four amendments and various others will be ruled out of order in terms of your decision, Mr. Chairman. I should therefore like to start by motivating the fifth amendment, viz. to omit subsection (5)(d). Paragraph (d) makes provision that any person who suspects that a certain organization is not operating properly can request that an inspection be carried out of the premises, activities, books and records of that organization. We believe that this is an unnecessary provision and that the hon. the Minister has in terms of this legislation established a very large organization under the control of the Director and his staff who have a tremendous range of powers which could be used effectively to act against any organization. It is therefore unnecessary to make provision for a situation in which a person can maliciously cause disruption to an organization or cause that organization to be harassed by the application of this particular provision.

My next amendment on the Order Paper seeks to remove the provision that an inspection can be carried out at any time, which in effect means that at any time of the day or night an inspection can be made of the premises of an organization. We believe it would be reasonable to amend that provision to provide for inspections to take place only during normal business hours. After all, we are not dealing here with an organization that can be described as vicious and dangerous but with ordinary fund-raising organizations. It would be an uncivilized act to provide that these organizations can be subjected to inspections at any time of the day or night. We think it would be completely reasonable for the inspection to be restricted to normal business hours. Amendment (8) has the same effect as amendment (6). Amendment (9) applies also to inspections and we feel that an inspection should only take place with proper prior notice. In other words the provision that an inspection can take place without prior notice must be removed. There is no reason whatsoever why reasonable notice should not be given to an organization that their premises and their books are to be inspected by an inspector.

As the provision stands at the moment an inspection can be carried out without a warrant. We believe that such inspections should only be carried out with a warrant as it is a normal and accepted procedure in a democratic State that where inspections of this nature take place, the premises should be entered and the books inspected only with a warrant. This is what amendment (10) in effect requires.

In terms of amendment (11) we propose to insert the words “relevant to the collection or disbursement of contributions” after the word “document”. We think it is totally unreasonable that all the documents of a person or an organization should be subject to inspection or removal. Surely only those documents and books which are relevant to the collection or disbursement of contributions should be subject to inspection or removal. We have been assured that this whole Bill deals only with fund-raising activities, but it would appear that, if that provision is not amended, this Bill could be used to inspect the books or the premises of a person or organization for reasons other than the reasons which are contained in this Bill. In other words it will not be confined to fund-raising purposes. There is also a provision in this clause which provides for interrogation under oath or affirmation of any person who is inspected or called upon without warrant at any time of the day. We believe that the word “interrogation” is wrong. It is, in fact, a frightening concept that anyone who has dedicated his life to collecting funds for some charity can be called upon at three o’clock in the morning—which is the time which most Government inspectors seem to find the most propitious to call upon people—and in his pyjamas could be placed under oath and there and then interrogated to establish the purposes for which he collects the funds. He can also be interrogated for any other purpose in terms of this law because this provision is not confined purely to the collection of funds. I think the use of the word “interrogation” is unfortunate and it is also unacceptable in terms of the nature of what is understood by the interrogation of people when they are called upon without a warrant at any time of the day or night. We therefore call for the word “interrogation” to be replaced by the word “questioning”. We think that has a far more civilized connotation. Amendments (15) and (16) are consequential upon what I have just said. Amendments (17) to (20) fall away in terms of your ruling, Mr. Chairman. We would like to withdraw amendments (21), (25) and (27). Amendments (22), (23), (24) and (26) fall away as well.

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

1. (1) On page 29, in lines 3 to 7, to omit paragraph (d);
2. (2) on page 29, in line 8, to omit “at any time” and to substitute “during normal business hours”;
3. (3) on page 29, in line 14, to omit “The Director or”;
4. (4) on page 29, in line 17, to omit “at any time” and to substitute “during normal business hours”;
5. (5) on page 29, in lines 17 and 18, to omit “and without prior notice”;
6. (6) on page 29, in line 19, to omit “without a” and to substitute “with the necessary”;
7. (7) on page 29, in line 21, after “documents” to insert:

1. (8) on page 29, in line 22, to omit “of the” and to substitute “such”;
2. (9) on page 29, in line 36, to omit “interrogate under oath or affirmation” and to substitute “question”;
3. (10) on page 29, in line 42, to omit all the words after “contributions” up to and including “person” in line 44;
4. (11) in the English text on page 29, in line 45, to omit “interrogated” and to substitute “questioned”;
5. (12) on page 29, in lines 46 and 47, to omit “at the interrogation” and to substitute “during the questioning”;
6. (13) on page 29, in line 49, to omit “Director or”;
7. (14) on page 29, in line 52, to omit “Director or”;
8. (15) on page 29, in line 53, to omit “Director or”;
9. (16) on page 29, in line 58, to omit “Director or an”.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the three amendments which appear in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 29, in lines 14 to 47, to omit subsections (6) and (7) and to substitute:

1. (6) The Director or an inspector shall not carry out any inspection in terms of this section unless he has been authorized to do so by the Minister.
2. (7) The Director or an inspector who carries out an inspection of the affairs of an organization or person in terms of this section may—

1. (a) by notice under his hand delivered to the organization or person concerned or forwarded to such organization or person by registered post, require an organization or person to produce any books, securities, records, accounts or other documents having any bearing on the investigation;
2. (b) retain for a reasonable period any books, securities, records, accounts or other documents after issuing a receipt therefor;
3. (c) demand from the said organization or person any such explanations of any entry in the said records, accounts or documents as he may deem necessary.

1. (2) on page 29, in line 48, to omit “(6)(a)” and to substitute “(7)(a)”;
2. (3) on page 29, in lines 60 and 61, to omit “seized in terms of subsection (6)(b)” and to substitute:

Clause 30 deals with the inspections that can be carried out. Amendments Nos. (2) and (3) are virtually consequential on the acceptance of amendment No. (1), and I shall therefore only motivate amendment No. (1). This amendment deals with the powers of the director or an inspector and commences with the substitution of new subsections (6) and (6). In the case of the first portion of this clause, from subsections (1) to (5), we agree that inspections must be carried out. It is important that such inspections take place from time to time and we have no great objection to the first five subsections. Included in those subsections, however, is subsection (2) which authorizes the appointment of an inspector. In this regard I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whom he has in mind to appoint as inspectors, because subsection (2) clearly states that a person who is not in the full-time employment of the State, shall be appointed as an inspector. In view of the tremendous powers that these inspectors have, acting on the authority of the director, it is important to know what kind of person will be appointed to such a post and what qualifications an inspector of this kind will have to possess before being granted the powers that are contained in this clause. I hope the hon. the Minister can give us some further detail as to what qualifications the proposed inspectors will have to have.

My amendment which seeks to substitute subsection (6) reads—

This is an effort to ensure that the director will act with the full knowledge of the hon. the Minister when it comes to the carrying out of his inspection. I am pleased to see that the hon. the Minister, in the Bill that is now before us, has brought about a slight change from the previous Bill in that in terms of subsection (5) the steps to be taken by the director in regard to inspections, will have to have the approval of the hon. the Minister before the affairs of an organization can be investigated. The new subsection (6), as my amendment proposes, is therefore virtually in line with what is provided for in the Bill in regard to the hon. the Minister’s approval.

The new subsection (7), which I have proposed in my amendment, deals with the method by which a director or an inspector should carry out such an inspection. As the clause now stands we foresee certain difficulties—as the hon. member for Bryanston also pointed out—in regard to inspections under oath and inspections without any prior notice. The basis of my amendment is to ensure that these organizations are in fact given notice that such an inspection is to be carried out and that the books that may be required for the inspection, should be retained for a reasonable period and that a receipt should be issued for them. The organization will also be required to explain entries in such records, accounts or documents on demand from such an inspector or director. What I am aiming at in this respect, is to have a reasonable method of inspection carried out by a director or an inspector. As the clause now stands, it does hint at the fact that some sort of cloak and dagger inspection is going to be carried out. I do not believe that is the real intention of such an inspection. In terms of the provisions of the 1965 Act, provision was made for inspections to be carried out and, in many cases, we know that there are also organizations which are not particularly efficient in the administration of their affairs. Consequently inspections have to be carried out in the interests of people who have contributed funds towards such an organization. The basis of having an inspection is therefore not at issue; we are nevertheless particularly concerned about the method in which the inspection will be carried out. I have discussed the matter with various welfare organizations and they do not seem to have any difficulty in regard to the existing position in terms of the 1965 Act. The amendments which I have proposed are more or less in line with the provisions of the 1965 Act. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why it is necessary now to have a basis of inspection which is a considerable departure from the basis of inspection provided for in the 1965 Act, bearing in mind that, to my knowledge, there have not been any great difficulties in carrying out the inspections in terms of the provisions of the existing Act.

As I mentioned earlier, some of these fundraising organizations are dilatory in some respects and it is necessary for these inspections to be carried out. However, the vast majority of fund-raising organizations, of course, administer their affairs in a competent manner. It is only in exceptional cases that they would perhaps be found not to do so and, therefore, it is possible that the inspections to be carried out by the director or the inspector will be a limited form of inspection.

Provision is made in terms of which a person is entitled on the grounds of facts declared under oath, to request that such an inspection be carried out. This is another departure from the existing position. That is why I have moved an amendment proposing that this provision should be replaced by the proposed new subsections (6) and (7). The aim of these proposed subsections is to ensure that when an inspection is carried out the inspectors shall have the necessary authority to examine and retain books, and to demand explanations from the people connected with the fund-raising organization concerned. The proposed provisions will also enable them to take steps should they be necessary on the basis of that inspection.

If on such an inspection sufficient evidence is found that a person is guilty of an offence in terms of the legislation, they could then proceed to either withdraw or amend an authority which has been granted. If the amendments which I have proposed are accepted, sufficient machinery will exist for the director or an inspector, with the approval of the Minister, to carry out such an inspection, and to ensure that it is a thorough inspection and that the people are given a fair opportunity to put their case. Obviously, the people concerned also have to have an opportunity to state their case and give explanations. Therefore, I hope the hon. the Minister will consider these amendments in the light of the fact that we accept that inspections might be necessary, but that in our opinion the method of inspection as proposed in the Bill far exceeds the normal procedure as far as the inspection of organizations is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask hon. members to see this clause against the background of the following example and set of facts which I want to present. Suppose A gives B a cheque of R10 000 as a donation for charity and he finds out afterwards—say in the evening at 19h00—that B is a crook, and that the authority which B showed him, was forged and that there was good reason to believe that he not only received a cheque of R10 000 from A only, but that he received various other big cheques from other people in a fraudulent way. Now of course quick action has to be taken before the cheques are cashed the next morning when the bank opens. Do hon. members want me in such a case to notify B that we are going to inspect his organization at a specified time the next day or the day after?

Why do you not just ring the police?

Hon. members are now saying I should call in the police. Suppose, however, that the director is not quite convinced of the fact. Must he expose the man to police inspection whereas he could rather adopt this milder form of inspection by a person who has knowledge of accountancy?

I want to relate this to the first point raised by the hon. member for Bryanston. He is worried about the fact that anyone can complain and that someone who could have a personal grudge against another person can now lay a charge against him and in that way make his life a misery. For that very reason the clause provides that anyone laying an unfounded charge, could be forced to pay the costs of the entire inspection. Therefore there is a sanction, a deterrent, against such abuse, viz. unfounded charges being laid for personal reasons. Provision has therefore been made to act against any person who wrongly lays a charge knowing full well that it is without foundation. We shall deal with him in this way.

The question of normal business hours is one which often crops up. I should like to make the statement that very few fund-raising organizations or fund-raising campaigns could be tied to normal business hours. It is different in the case of a bank which has to comply with fixed business hours in terms of the Financial Institutions Act. The concept “fixed business hours” would therefore be very difficult to interpret. Normally ordinary inspections would obviously be carried out at a reasonable time. But as in the factual example which I gave you, one actually wants the surprise element on one’s side when one clamps down. The time aspect is very important because quick action might be necessary.

The hon. member also said that we should obtain a warrant. Surely the official who wants to take action has the option of obtaining a warrant issued by a magistrate, or of obtaining ministerial approval in any case. The question of ministerial approval entails a report or accountability to Parliament. I should think hon. members should prefer the second alternative. If I should allow action to be taken against one of their voters at an unreasonable time in terms of this clause, they would be able to take me to task here. But they cannot do that when a magistrate issues a warrant. For that reason I think the insertion of the provision with regard to ministerial approval at two points in the clause should meet the objections of the Opposition in this regard.

The hon. member went on to complain about documents which are now going to be taken away. How can one know what is in a document if one does not take it away and examine it? Surely one cannot just glance through a document in order to determine what is in it. Sometimes a whole pile of documents could be involved.

The hon. member further complained about the translation of “ondervra” by “interrogate”. This is the normal translation and it appears in many Acts.

Not at all.

It does not have the sinister hidden meaning which the hon. member wants to attach to it. To both those hon. members who took part in the debate, I just want to point out one example of a comparable section, a section which works in practice and about which people do not complain. This section is contained in the Inspection of Financial Institutions Act, No. 68 of 1962. Apart from the question of business hours, which I have already dealt with and which is not provided for here, the provision with regard to the powers of inspection of the registrar and inspectors is very similar to that outlined in clause 30 of this Bill. For example, provision is made for people to be interrogated under oath, for documents to be taken away and for explanations to be demanded. Apart from that there is a whole list of Acts in terms of which these powers of inspection are granted. The provisions are not all identically worded. Examples which I should like to refer to are, the Wine, Spirit and Vinegar Act, No. 25 of 1957, the Customs and Excise Act, the Arms and Ammunition Act, the Forestry Act, the National Parks Act, the Bantu Administration Act, No. 38 of 1927, the Stock Theft Act, the Criminal Procedures Act, the Liquor Act, the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, the Community Development Act and the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances Act. Naturally one does not apply such a provision at random. I just want to say that primarily it is not registered organizations which will be inspected in terms of this provision, but the very organizations which should be registered and which are contravening the Act by raising funds without having obtained authority. Action will be taken against such organizations under this clause.

†Mr. Chairman, I now come to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Umbilo. In the first instance he asked me what sort of person we would employ. For this type of project we usually employ a person who has the proper qualifications in respect of accounting and auditing procedures. That is obvious because in many cases he will be required to interpret the contents of books and financial documents. The hon. member then asked me to accept an amendment requiring that notice be given. I think I have dealt with that matter already. However, I want to add that it is our normal practice to give notice when there is no indication that notice in advance would be counterproductive to the purpose of the investigation. But there are some cases where notice will be counterproductive and where the surprise element is absolutely important.

Is it still the intention to serve notice in normal cases?

In normal cases it is the intention to serve notice, but I cannot accept an absolute prescription requiring that in all cases notice must be given. The hon. member must remember that it is not only welfare organizations which are involved.

I realize that.

There are now quite a number of other organizations which fall within the ambit of the Bill which maybe necessitates the somewhat wider powers provided for in clause 30, in comparison with the relevant section in terms of existing welfare legislation. Therefore, after very careful consideration, I have decided that I cannot accept any of the amendments.

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

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. G. N. Oldfield negatived and amendments (2) and (3) dropped (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32:

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

Clause 32, in our opinion, is a very important clause. I said earlier that this clause could be looked upon as the death warrant for each and every one of the 4 000 odd registered welfare organizations in South Africa, as well as of those organizations holding certificates of registration in terms of the 1965 Act. This amendment is not meant to be a plea in mitigation. It should rather be regarded as an appeal against a sentence which has been suspended for two years. This appeal is lodged on the grounds that the welfare organizations of South Africa have committed no crime whatsoever against anyone. What the hon. the Minister should do is to allow those organizations to remain registered as they are at the moment. What we seek to achieve through this amendment is to delete the two-year provision.

Mr. Chairman, the insertion of this clause is also a direct result of the recommendations by the Van Rooyen Commission. We do not even go as far as other countries do in this respect. Many other countries, in their legislation and rules of this nature, often provide that re-registration should take place every five years. The reason is obviously the need for one’s records to be up to date at all times. In South Africa we have no such provision. The registration we deal with here will be a registration once and for all. However, some of the existing registration certificates issued in terms of welfare legislation have already been in existence since 1947. We want to start with a clean sheet now. We are bringing in completely new welfare legislation, and it is only logical that we will want to recompile the register and, in doing so, will require everybody to register anew.

*Some of the registered organizations have undergone fundamental changes since the time of their registration. The objects of some of these organizations are very vaguely defined. Consequently the department has no meaningful idea of exactly what they are engaged in doing. It is not a question of pronouncing death sentences at all. It is merely an administrative arrangement which has to be carried through because we are starting with a completely new dispensation. It is nothing more than an administrative arrangement, and no registered welfare organization need to have fears as a result of this. All we are requiring is the completion and handing in of a form. That is what the hon. member for Hillbrow calls a death warrant.

I really do not know why the hon. member for Hillbrow indulges so absolutely in superlatives. What is involved here, is merely the harmless reregistration of registered welfare organizations so that they may be included in the new register. They have two years to do so. In my opinion that is as fair as can be.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 33:

Mr. Chairman, this clause makes provision for exempting certain categories of organizations so that they will not be subject to the provisions of chapter I of the Bill. They are, however, not exempted from the blanket provision in clause 29 in terms of which arbitrary action can also be taken against these organizations by the Minister if he so wishes at any time. Nevertheless clause 33 does not make provision for some exemption and to the extent to which it brings relief to these organizations we should like to register our gratitude. These exemptions are in many ways unsatisfactory and I should like to point out a few of them.

In the first instance I should like to refer to the exemption which applies to religious organizations such as churches. The exemption which is granted to them has two specific qualifications both of which render the exemption virtually valueless as far as those organizations are concerned. The first qualification is that it applies only to funds collected during a religious service.

I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister, as is the case with his department, is aware that churches do not collect money only during religious services. Lines 21 and 22 on page 33 read—

You should read further. There is also the word “or”.

I shall do that—

In addition to that a religious organization or a church collects money in many other ways and on many other occasions which are not directly associated with a religious service.

Yes, and that, is provided for by the word “or”.

The question is, however, why such a provision should be included. I should also like to know why it is necessary to have the further qualification “or in terms of the written authority of such body” included. A bazaar does not form part of a religious service. If a church wants to have a bazaar, will it have to obtain a written authority before pancakes can be sold to the members of the church? I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that it is totally unnecessary that those two qualifications should be included in the exemption.

There is a further qualification, which I think is even more unacceptable, to be found in the words “and exclusively for the purpose of promoting the religious work of such body”. Once again I am filled with suspicion and apprehension when I read that provision because I think that what the Government is aiming at here is the work which churches do outside of that narrow definition “exclusively for the promotion of religious work of such body”.

Just recently there was a provision in a Cape Provincial Council Ordinance which sought to empower the provincial administration to take action—I think shameful action—against churches which accommodated people whose squatter houses were destroyed by the Government. I believe those churches fulfilled their mission, their God-given mission, by accommodating and looking after the hapless victims of squatter removals. The Government and the Cape Provincial Council sought to take what I think can only be described as shameful action against those churches.

You are a vindictive person, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I am not so sure that the provision in this particular clause cannot be applied in an equally shameful way. In other words, if the Government disapproves of work which churches do outside of the narrow field of purely religious work, although I think it is religious work, I believe this provision will be used to operate against those churches. The Government will simply define the social work, the good Samaritan work of the churches, as being outside the confines of purely religious work. Having defined it as such, the Government will then say that the exemption no longer applies and will consequently take action against such churches. That is why we oppose this aspect and why the relevant amendment applies.

I now come to the third amendment. This deals with educational institutions. There is an exemption for an educational institution in relation to funds raised from parents, guardians or people who are closely associated with such an institution. Once again, I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that a great number of contributions for such institutions come from organizations or persons who are not closely related to the children, scholars or students studying at such institutions. In such cases the exemption should be extended, and the way to extend that exemption to cover those cases as well, is to amend the provision in the way we suggest in the third amendment.

I should also like to point to the hon. the Minister that if the particular clause stands as it is, and if the provisions of this legislation are applied to universities, particularly to those extensive and very valuable fundraising activities known as “rags” which take place annually, the hon. the Minister will find that this law is most unfortunately going to stifle the enthusiasm and spontaneity of the activities of students at rag time, and this could result in a reduction in the funds raised by the rag activities, funds used for very worthy purposes in South Africa. I think the hon. the Minister should look at that and, if possible, also exempt the collection of funds that takes place in terms of rag activities at universities.

We should also like to remove the narrow restriction imposed in lines 33 and 34 by omitting the words “and for the purposes of the development of such university or college”. Once again, surely the collection and application of any funds, under the full control of the responsible authorities at a university, should not form the subject of an exemption as restrictive as the one in this Bill. Surely to goodness the Government can trust a university, if it has collected funds under its control and direction, to apply those funds in the best interests of the university and its students, i.e. the best interests of the institution. It is therefore unnecessary to include a provision stating that it must be “for the purposes of the development of such university or college”. The word “development” unfortunately totally unnecessarily restricts the university or the college in the application of those funds, and I think it detracts from the responsibility and competence of such organizations to restrict them in that way.

Lastly, I come to the fifth amendment. The hon. the Minister is also aware of the fact that newspapers in South Africa do a great deal of fund-raising. This is done publicly and out in the open and there can be nothing subversive about this. There can be no malpractices involved because the control also involves the scrutiny of the public as such. Therefore all newspapers which are members of the Newspaper Press Union should be exempted from the provisions of this Act, on the strength of the record of service they have set by the large number of very worthy causes they have supported as a result of the fund-raising activities they have promoted and launched in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I now move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 33, in lines 21 and 22, to omit “during a religious service or”;
2. (2) on page 33, in lines 23 and 24, to omit “and exclusively for the purpose of promoting the religious work of such body”;
3. (3) On page 33, in line 25, to omit all the words after “institution” up to and including “institution” in line 28 and to substitute:

1. (4) on page 33, in lines 33 and 34, to omit “, and for the purposes of the development of such university or college”;

2. (5) on page 33, after line 34, to insert:

   (h) collected by a newspaper which is a member of the Newspaper Press Union;

Mr. Chairman, there are two aspects of this clause I should like to ask the hon. the Minister questions about. One relates to a matter the hon. member for Bryanston raised, viz. the definition of “religious work”. We know that the churches undertake a good deal of other welfare work. Some of them run meals-on-wheels schemes and organize other forms of social relief. Many of them also administer childrens’ homes. Indeed, it is mostly the churches that provide children’s homes and so forth. The definition of “religious work” as referred to in paragraph (d) is therefore of great importance and we should like the hon. the Minister to enlighten us further on what he considers as the “religious work” of the churches.

Then, in terms of paragraph (h), the provisions of Chapter I of the Bill shall not apply in respect of contributions—

Furthermore, in terms of subsection (3)—

I should like to ask whether, in terms of that section, the hon. the Minister can grant such exemption to organizations which have met certain requirements and have similar aims and objects to those of the organizations provided for in this clause. I am thinking particularly of the position of, for instance, the SABC Christmas Fund. Large sums of money are raised by the SABC through its appeals broadcast over the radio for contributions to the Christmas Fund and a good many organizations have benefited from the distribution of the proceeds of that fund. In view of the fact that that fund is the responsibility of the SABC and its board of governors and is subject to control in that the contributions are raised through the medium of the radio and the SABC, we feel that the SABC’s successful efforts in this field should also fall within the ambit of this clause. I hope the hon. the Minister can give some indication whether, in terms of that provision, he will be able to exempt a fund such as the SABC Christmas Fund. I believe that this is an important aspect and that the public should be encouraged to come forward and assist in good causes when an appeal is made to them to do so. Perhaps an exemption in terms of this clause for a fund such as the SABC Christmas Fund would help to encourage people to make even greater efforts in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to the same provisions the hon. member for Umbilo referred to, but perhaps from a slightly different angle. I also want to deal with the hon. the Minister’s intention with or interpretation of clause 33(1)(h) as read in conjunction with clause 5(2) of Chapter I in respect of the position in which service organizations or clubs will find themselves in terms of this Bill. It is fairly obvious from the indications given by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech that he may well use paragraph (h) of clause 33(1) to grant exemption to service organizations, but there are a number of problems related to this in respect of which we should like clarity from the hon. the Minister. Some branches of organizations like Round Table and Lions had WO numbers. Is it the intention of the hon. the Minister that these organizations should apply for registration of the organizations on a national basis or is it the intention that every branch will have to register and, if so, how will the licence be granted in terms of the objectives of the service organizations? I ask this because the objectives of these organizations change from time to time. On one occasion a service organization may be raising funds for the blind and on another occasion a different branch or even the same branch may be raising funds to build a school for the underprivileged. I think it is incumbent on the hon. the Minister to give us clarity on where he sees the bona fide service organization in South Africa fitting into this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would be best if I first gave a general comment on this clause, because it might facilitate the rest of my reply. First of all I want to say that in the application of clause 33 I shall at all times act on the assumption that registration as a fund-raising organization and the obligations arising from that are not burden or a disgrace to any organization. This is fundamental and the idea that we only want the dishonest to register should be avoided. It is not true. We want all organizations which are handling large amounts of money to register. The reason for that is that the public is entitled to know what happens to that money; the way those funds are handled, is a matter of public interest. It is not a disgrace to register, and we are not reserving registration for those organizations that are under suspicion. Many good, honest and sincere organizations will have to register. I am not going to exempt all those whom I consider to be good and require only those that I suspect for some reason or another to register. I am going to apply the authority for granting exemption under clause 33(h) very sparingly. It is because the Bill is aimed at control, management and security for the public. The optimum operation of the Bill will be—and that is the way it will be applied—that our aim will be achieved, viz. that an organization will be proud of being registered, that it will be eager to be registered and that registration will be an asset to it just like the WO number is to a welfare organization at present. Surely it is not a disgrace for a welfare organization to be registered under the present legislation.

As a matter of fact they are almost queueing up for a WO number. It will be the same thing under this legislation. I do not want to refer to any organization in particular. I do not want to talk about service organizations and I do not want to talk about the specific fund to which the hon. member for Umbilo referred. They are free however, to draw their own conclusions from what I have just said.

Is it possible in terms of clause 33(1)(h)?

Anything is possible in terms of clause 33(1)(h), but I want to assure hon. members that I am not going to grant exemption under clause 33(1)(h) merely because an organization pursues a good objective and because good people are in control. I shall rather take such norms into consideration as the amount which they handle being so small that the whole procedure of the Bill is unnecessary when it involves an insignificant raising of funds which takes place on an ad hoc basis and which involves R10, R20 or R25. That would rather be the consideration in the application of clause 33(1)(h). If hon. members look up the rest of the exemptions in terms of clause 33(1)(h), they will see that in most cases the exemptions are based on the principle that there is already proper control under another Act, or, in the case of Government bodies, that control is being exercised in terms of legislation, controlling measures of the Public Service Commission, etc. For that reason clause 33(1)(h) is not intended to exempt certain organizations in a selective way and burden others. Clause 33(1)(h) seeks to prevent the legislation from causing unnecessary red tape and granting such exemption to meritorious cases that want exemption on very special grounds. In such cases special circumstances must apply and it will not be done merely because they are good organizations and are doing good work. Furthermore, such exemption should be granted only after the matter has been properly investigated. Against that background I shall deal with specific cases.

To the hon. member for Bryanston I want to say that the exemption of churches is much wider than he implied in his speech. I must dwell on this aspect a little because there must be no misunderstanding about it. In the first place he has to realize that clause 33(1)(c) also applies to churches. In fact, it applies to every organization in South Africa, and I shall be glad if hon. members would take note of that for it could eliminate a lot of misunderstanding. Clause 33(1)(c) provides that Chapter I of the Bill—in other words the Bill as it affects the public—does not apply to the raising of funds—

1. (c) collected from any person by virtue of his membership of the organization collecting the contributions.

It is a very wide exemption, because in that we are saying that an organization only needs authorization when it bypasses its members and turns to the general public. It is a fundamental starting point which hon. members should recognize and which ought to remove the cobwebs in the minds of many hon. members in the Opposition. In the second place, as far as religious matters are concerned, the hon. member has created the impression—I do not think he meant to do so—that the exemption of religious agencies is restricted to money collected in the church during a religious service. It is not the case. That is only the second leg of the provision. The first leg provides that if such religious agency collects money from its members, it is exempted. The second leg provides that if such agency collects money during the service, regardless of whom attends the service, it is exempted. The additional and third leg provides for such an organization to be exempted when it collects money on a house to house basis or turns to the general public with the proviso that the money which it collects among the general public outside of a church complex, must be for religious purposes.

What about a church bazaar?

It depends on what the church bazaar is being held for. If the money collected at a church bazaar is used for religious purposes the bazaar is also exempted. But if the money collected at the church bazaar is utilized for buying a merry-go-round for example—to use this absolutely ridiculous and absurd example—it will have to register, because it is not buying a merry-go-round for religious purposes.

If the proceeds of a bazaar are utilized for a religious purpose, therefore, the bazaar will also be exempted. If the money is used for a secular purpose, however, authorization will have to be obtained before the church bazaar can take place. This principle is embodied in that very form in existing legislation. Churches have never objected to it and the measure has worked very well throughout. The main principle is that a religious organization is only exempted in respect of activities restricted to religious work. I should like to quote from draft legislation drawn up in America by the American Association of Fund-raising Council. From what I can deduce, these people are making money and a living from fund-raising. In the light of the chaos which reigns, they decided to compile this draft legislation. Do hon. members know what these people had to say about religious organizations? They say that these organizations do have to be exempted, but towards the end they also say the following—

That is why I say that the church has nothing to fear in respect of the provision of the legislation. But if the church acts outside of the framework of its normal functions, it is regarded as an ordinary organization like any other.

Define it for us.

I cannot define it, but I can in fact tell you how the Act will be applied. If the church feels that a certain objective should be regarded as religious and if the State feels very strongly that it really is not a religious objective, action will have to be taken against such a church because there is no definition in the Act If ever we experience such a conflict situation, the courts of the country will have to decide it. Hon. members are constantly expressing their full confidence in the courts of the country and therefore they can rest assured that the interpretation of the meaning of the words “religious objectives” will not depend on my subjective view of it.

Suppose a church wants to collect money to provide housing, clothing, food, medical services etc., to squatters whose homes have been flattened: Would the department regard it as a religious objective, or would it be regarded as some other objective?

I am not prepared to discuss any single example in this regard. If I answer that question, I am obliged to tell any member which Christmas Fund I am going to exempt and which not.

Do you expect us to vote for the Bill?

I should say that it should be accepted as a general principle that the church should remain within the framework of its religious task and it is a fact that part of the mission of a church is charity. If the church is doing bona fide charity, in whatever practical area, it need not be concerned in this regard.

How are you going to judge that?

Does your department judge that?

If a dispute about it should arise, it will not be the department, but the courts which in the final analysis will have to decide it. We do not want confrontation with the church, however. In my opinion it is absolutely irresponsible of hon. members, even on specific politically controversial examples, to drag in the church by the hair into this debate whereas we want to exempt religious organizations which includes the church. I am saying this because I highly value this previous gem of sovereignty in one’s own circle, our proud tradition of proper recognition of the freedom of the church in its sphere and the freedom of the State in its domain and our wonderful history of good relations between the State and the church. I want to state categorically that as long as the churches confine themselves to their Christian mission—I am not a theologian; the church will have to interpret this mission themselves—the churches have nothing to fear from this Bill. [Interjections.] There will only be confrontation with the churches if the churches are becoming political organizations. The decision is in their own hands. From the Government they have nothing to fear as long as they do not enter the political field and move outside of the framework of the traditional sphere of the church.

Schools are obviously being exempted from the provisions of the Bill. Only private schools as such are not being exempted. I have received representations in this regard, and I do not want to give any final pronouncements on that. I still want to consider this matter very thoroughly. I want to say however, that I doubt whether I will be able to exempt the private schools as a category completely. I shall have to follow the same principle according to which other schools have been exempted, viz. that in terms of an ordinance they are subject to more or less the same control as the control these ordinary fund-raising organizations are subject to under this Bill. For that reason schools and certain other institutions have been exempted. Therefore, I do not believe private schools will be exempted, but I want to tell those schools once again that they should not see registration and the obligations which flow from that as a burden. It is a very ordinary administrative act which has to be performed. After that it is a question of statements which have to be sent in annually and that is not a burden nor a handicap either.

There was also talk about universities. There is already a limited exemption in this regard. The hon. member felt that universities should have an “open” exemption. Two professors served on this commission and they maintained that the legislation should be worded as it is at the moment. To the best of my knowledge we have not received representations from any university on this particular aspect of the Bill. Therefore it is nothing to get hot under the collar about.

The hon. member for Umbilo asked for a definition of “religious work”.

†I think I have already replied to that.

The hon. member for Durban North asked me whether it is national organizations or local organizations which must register. My answer to him is that it is totally in their own hands. They have both options and can choose for themselves. Both the national and the local branches can register, or just the national branch can register or just the local branches. It is up to them. I think I have already replied to his other questions.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The problem which I see here is the question of the objective of, for instance, a national branch which wants to register. Would such a branch be allowed to give a blanket objective, such as raising funds for charity, or will they have to specify every project for which they are collecting funds? As I have mentioned earlier on, these organizations radically change their objectives from time to time, although it all has to do with charitable work. Will they be able to register, stating their objective as charity rather than specific projects?

If an organization changes its objective after it has registered, in terms of the Bill read in conjunction with the regulations, it will have to register the alteration of its objectives with the director, and then proceed with its new objective. [Interjections.]

Amendment (1) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

On amendment (2),

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—101: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; 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.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Theunissen, L. M.; 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 Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. E.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

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

Noes—21: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; 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.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

On amendment (3),

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—103: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; 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.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Theunissen, L. M.; 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 Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

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

Noes—21: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; 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.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendments (4) and (5) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Business suspended at 12h50 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Clause 34:

Mr. Chairman, I have four amendments on the Order Paper, but I shall not be moving amendment No. (2). I accordingly move amendments (1), (3) and (4), now amendments (1), (2) and (3), printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 33, in lines 53 and 54, to omit “the Director or any member of his staff or”;
2. (2) on page 33, in line 59, to omit “five hundred”;
3. (3) on page 33, in line 60, to omit “three years” and to substitute “one year”.

Firstly, the omission of the words “the Director or any member of his staff or” in paragraph (c) means that the sentence will then read—

I think that is self-explanatory and I hope the hon. the Minister will accept the deletion of those words.

My second amendment serves to reduce the penalty from R1 500 to R1 000 and the third amendment serves to reduce the penalty in terms of imprisonment from three years to one year. I think that the sentences as they stand in the Bill at the moment are out of proportion in relation to the offence and I hope that the hon. the Minister will concede that.

Mr. Chairman, I have considered the amendments carefully, but unfortunately I cannot accept them. There may be thousands of rand involved in some of these cases and I therefore think we should trust the courts with the discretion to apply the sentences. There is no minimum involved. There is only a maximum sentence and for serious offences they should have the discretion to impose a fairly heavy sentence. Obviously for less serious offences they have the full discretion to reduce the penalty.

With regard to the other amendment, I cannot see why it should be an offence to obstruct an inspector in the performance of his duties, but not the director. Because it is illogical I cannot accept that amendment either.

Amendment (1) negatived.

Amendments (2) and (3) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 35:

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

I think it is self-explanatory from the wording of the amendment that all we are asking for is the deletion of subsection (2). As we are now dealing with the delegation of powers we feel that the powers given to the Secretary to delegate are quite sufficient because he can authorize any officer in the department to carry out these functions. By the deletion of subsection (2) we are taking away the powers which the director has to delegate. “Secretary” refers to the Secretary for Social Welfare and Pensions or the Chief of the Defence Force, so all that is catered for. When one looks at the substantial powers given to the director in this Bill as contained in clauses 4, 5, 6, 30 and 31, we feel it is going too far to allow these powers to be delegated in the manner as suggested in subsection (2). That is why we are moving the deletion of subsection (2).

Mr. Chairman, the whole idea of delegation by the director is to facilitate the operation of the Act for the public organizations. The point is, however, as I have announced already, that I want to delegate the powers to all the regional offices of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions in order to enable organizations to apply and obtain permission close to their place of activity. I cannot understand the hon. member objecting to that. However, I want to assure the hon. member that we shall not delegate far-reaching powers, in so far as there might be far-reaching powers vested in the director. In 99% of the cases, however, it is a mere formality to have these people’s names noted in the register and grant their requests. This is really something we can delegate. It will certainly eliminate red tape and facilitate matters a great deal for the public as well as the organizations concerned. Therefore I regret to say that I cannot accept the amendment.

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, it is unfortunate that the hon. the Minister did not see his way clear to accept any of the amendments moved by the Opposition parties during this debate. It is unfortunate because we sincerely believe that we have been in the position to assist the hon. the Minister to improve the legislation, not only in the form in which it would ultimately appear on the Statute Book, but also in the manner in which the legislation would have been carried out in practice and in the way in which it would have affected those hundreds of organizations and those many thousands of people whose activities it seeks to control. However, the hon. the Minister did not find it possible to accept any of our amendments. As a result we now have the Bill still largely in the form in which the hon. the Minister originally presented it to the House. We made it clear throughout that we accepted that there was a need for a reasonable amount of enlightened and intelligent control over the raising and the application of funds collected from the public, funds which are destined for worthy causes. Throughout the debate that has taken place on this Bill, however, it has been quite clear that there is an over-reaction on the part of the Government in this respect. It is clear that the Government continuously seems to find it necessary to produce an overkill reaction, to produce over-kill mechanisms to deal with this need, to produce legislation which is so wide in its scope and in its powers that it can in fact do more harm than good if it is carried out unwisely. Of course, the hon. the Minister has given us the assurance so many times—and it is difficult not to accept the assurance from him; after all, he is a nice and reasonable guy—that he will certainly not apply this legislation in an unwise or in a devious or vicious fashion. It is difficult not to believe that the hon. the Minister is perfectly sincere in that intention of his. However, in democracy one of the main aims of the production of legislation— in a true democracy—is not to clothe authority with more powers than that particular authority reasonably needs in order to carry out its work effectively. I think that in this case the hon. the Minister unfortunately clothes himself with powers which are way in access of the powers he needs to carry out his responsibilities reasonably, effectively and in the interests of South Africa and all its people.

Even though this legislation is unacceptable in many respects, we nevertheless would like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister, in the execution of the tasks which are set out in this legislation, together with his department to attempt to assist fundraising organizations and to stimulate and encourage fund-raising and all the activities of all the organizations that are involved in this field. We hope that the hon. the Minister will avoid, as far as it is possible for him to do so, any attempt to strangle or to inhibit these organizations. I am so worried that they may scare off well-intentioned people and organizations as far as their work is concerned. There is unfortunately a threat which is going to hang over the heads of every person or organization that operates in this field. That threat is spelt out in this Bill. It is not the opinion of the Official Opposition, but it is clearly spelt out in the provisions of this Bill, that if one displeases the Government, one is subject to provisions which can close one down and put an end to one’s activities and to one’s organization. Of course, the Government denies this. The hon. the Minister has consistently denied this. I accept that, in fact, he is sincere in the denial. But in this legislation there are provisions clearly spelt out which can have no interpretation other than that if the Government disapproves of an organization or its activities, it can apply the full force and effect of this legislation to wipe out that organization. I am not an expert on security legislation—other people are—but there are provisions within this legislation which look as dangerous and far-reaching in their scope as in some of the worst security legislation which we have in this country. One of the things which the hon. the Minister is going to find is that our appeal for a representative council of fund-raising organizations was a well founded appeal, because that council could have assisted the hon. Minister in carrying out this legislation more effectively, in gaining the confidence of all the people that are involved, and in seeing to it that it had the trust of those people and that it had credibility among them. I think that the hon. Minister may in time to come relent and come to this House with legislation calling for the creation of such a council. I think it may very well take place in his lifetime.

We will be watching the Government very carefully in terms of many of the provisions of this Bill. One of the things that we will be watching is the provision which applies to overseas funds. One of the thinks that we are going to watch very carefully is that provision which applies to funds which come from overseas for questionable purposes in South Africa. I would like to know whether the director that the hon. the Minister is appointing is going to call on Thor Communicators. Is Thor Communicators going to be one of the first places where that director is going to call? Thor Communicators have been given R3 million—if reports are to be believed—from an overseas source which has passed via various banks into the account of Thor Communicators in South Africa. It is a secret fund for secret purposes and we do not know what the purposes of those funds are. I think that if the hon. the Minister wants to be consistent he should send his director to call on Thor Communicators to establish where they are getting their funds from, what funds they are getting and for what questionable purposes they are applying them in South Africa.

On which Bill are you speaking now?

This Bill.

That matter comes up for discussion tomorrow only.

I think that the hon. the Minister will yet regret that he allowed clause 29 to stand in the Bill as it is, because clause 29 brings this Bill into disrepute. The wording, intent and nature of clause 29 bring this Bill into disrepute. It gives to this Bill the characteristics and the appearance, not of a Bill dealing with social welfare and of fund-raising, but of a State security Bill.

I also think that the hon. the Minister will find that his refusal to accept our amendment in respect of the exemptions clause, clause 33, will make him justifiably unpopular with universities, schools and many other organizations including religious organizations who seek to do nothing else but to carry out their responsibilities, their aspirations and their work effectively in the true interests of all South Africa’s people. They are now going to find that the exemptions that are provided for in terms of this Bill are not so much going to assist them in carrying out their work, but are going to hinder them in an unfortunate way in carrying out their work simply because the hon. the Minister was not prepared to accept the well-intentioned and sincere amendments which came from this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches have endeavoured to obtain additional information from the hon. the Minister during the various stages of debate on this Bill. We have now reached the Third Reading stage and unfortunately the hon. the Minister has still persisted in retaining clause 29, which we still believe is unnecessary in this Bill because there seems to be sufficient powers for the hon. the Minister or the director to deal with any matters which may not be felt to be in the public interest. The question here is whether this type of legislation will inhibit or hamper, in any way, genuine fund-raising organizations. We believe that it is not the intention to do so when an organization is raising funds for a definite purpose, aim and object. We believe that it is necessary that there should be control over, and adequate accounting for, funds that are collected from the public.

However, the aspect of money received from overseas, which has received a great deal of attention in the various stages of the debate on this Bill, is one in regard to which we can also see that there are difficulties. About that there is no doubt. We believe, however, that money that is collected from overseas should be subject to the same control as money collected within the Republic. We also believe that it is necessary to see to it that the money is utilized for that specific purpose. If one looks at page 29 of the Van Rooyen report, it becomes clear that there are organizations that are receiving money from overseas. I just want to quote one paragraph in connection with money received from overseas. The report states—

We fully agree with that point of view in the Van Rooyen report because if money is coming from overseas, for religious or educational purposes, and the organizations receiving those funds are using that money in that way, they should have nothing to fear from this legislation. They should have nothing to fear because they would be using the money for the purposes for which it was collected, and the aims, objects and utilization of that money will be in accordance with the purposes for which the money was solicited and received.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he would have any objection to an organization stating clearly that it is collecting money in order to provide legal defence aid for people who are charged with certain crimes in this country?

If they wish to use the money for the purposes of legal defence aid, and if it is required for that purpose, I do not see why that money should not be allowed to come into the country and be used for that purpose. I would, however, much rather see people, who are attempting to assist persons with their legal defence, raising the money in the Republic of South Africa to pay for such defence.

But it costs hundreds of thousands of rand.

Yes, unfortunately the legal profession seems to have extra high fees for such cases.

There is a tariff.

The point is that we would prefer to see the people raising the money within the Republic, but I do not see why the money that is raised outside the Republic for those purposes should not be subject to control, and that brings me to the amendment moved by the Official Opposition to delete subsection (2) of clause 1 of the Bill. This would have had the effect of that money not being subject to any form of control by the fund-raising organizations receiving that money.

The other aspect is the political aspect. It is important to note that on page 29 of the Van Rooyen Commission’s report it is stated that—

We have that clear statement in the Van Rooyen Commission’s report as far as the political aspect is concerned. I believe there is a considerable difference in the purpose for which the money is being utilized by the fund-raising organization receiving such funds.

There are also other matters such as the question of inhabiting fund-raising by organizations raising money from the public. These organizations are going to be subject to far greater control than existed in terms of the 1965 Act. I think it is only fair that the hon. the Minister and his department should make every effort to ensure that those people who wish to apply for registration in terms of this Bill will be fully aware of what the provisions are. I think it would be wise if the hon. the Minister would give consideration to issuing a directive to those applicants requiring registration in order that they will be fully aware of the consequences of being a registered organization and, of course, of not being a registered fund-raising organization.

This leads me on to the next point which is the question of the availability of staff to deal with these matters. Obviously, this measure is going to require the appointment of additional staff to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has indicated that it is his intention to delegate certain of the powers of the director to his regional representatives. In previous legislation it was endeavoured to ensure that the regional boards played a positive and active role, particularly amongst the welfare organizations, and it is hoped that by delegating powers to the regional areas concerned the regional boards will be fully utilized to bring about the co-ordination of fund-raising that is so necessary amongst the many fund-raising organizations.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister when he intends implementing this legislation after it has passed through all its stages in Parliament and has been assented to by the State President. What will the actual date of commencement be of this legislation? Although there is a two years’ saving clause in the Bill, many of these organizations and particularly the welfare organizations are perhaps going to find it difficult to ensure that they will meet all the requirements necessary to register in terms of the new provisions. I hope that at an early stage the hon. the Minister can give an indication of this date so that the organizations which feel they have to amend their constitutions or provide more efficient forms of accounting so that they will be able to submit the more detailed returns which will become necessary in terms of this legislation will have ample opportunity to rectify the position. We know that there are very wide powers in regard to the dissolution of various organizations and the disposal of their assets. In this regard many organizations have to provide a dissolution clause which will ensure that the money the public have paid will find its way to similar organizations should any of the organizations fail to meet the registration requirements or cease to function as an effective fund-raising organization or welfare organization, depending on its registration.

We view this legislation as a step in the direction of stricter and greater control, which is in accordance with the recommendations of the Van Rooyen Commission. We have certain reservations in regard to the wide powers the hon. the Minister has taken unto himself in clause 29 and in regard to the additional wide powers of inspection incorporated in clause 30. We will support the Bill at Third Reading and hope that it will not have the effect of discouraging people from coming forward and registering as fundraising organizations, but rather that they will view the position as being one of greater control. The members of the public who contribute to the fund-raising organizations will then be able to do so with the greatest of confidence, being fully aware that those organizations will use their funds to the full benefit of the course for which they were donated.

Mr. Speaker, I am told that this Bill has already had results, although the debate has not yet been concluded. I hear that a canvasser for a new political party recently knocked at the door of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and asked whether he wanted to contribute something to his new party. The reaction of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was that the canvasser could have Horace van Rensburg. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Bryanston has reacted very negatively throughout and now he is complaining that we did not want to accept their amendments. Every amendment that they moved, however, was aimed at detracting from the essence of the Bill and reducing the Bill to an absolutely harmless measure that would have no positive or negative effect, in fact that would have no effect at all. It would therefore have been just so many words on the Statute Book. If one passes a Bill, one must insure that one can implement the Bill in practice and that the necessary sanctions are there to enable one to implement it successfully so that the set objectives can be achieved.

It is said that the powers granted in the Bill, are out of proportion to what is required. I can just refer to the passage—one of several that one could refer to—which the hon. member for Umbilo has just quoted to the House. We did not snatch these provisions out of thin air. They are the result of a scientific investigation by an independent commission. That commission knows more about this subject after their thorough investigation than all of us in this House put together. They recommend powers as set out in clause 29 as well as powers referred to in clause 1(2). These were the two clauses that we debated the most. If I listen to the Van Rooyen Commission—it is an objective commission and has no direct interest, nor does it consist of power-drunk politicians—and I listen to the advice of the members of the Official Opposition on the other hand, I am inclined rather to carry into effect what the Van Rooyen Commission recommended.

The hon. member says that if one annoys the Director, he will be able to destroy one. How many more times must we say that the test for action by a government in a civilized State, as we are in the Republic of South Africa, dare not ever be the mere wishes and caprices of the Government. The test must be objective norms laid down by the law and according to which it can be determined what is and what is not in the interests of the State. In this spirit the Government administers all laws that are already on the Statute Book, and in this spirit we shall continue to administer this Bill too.

The hon. member and other hon. members of his party—I am referring to the hon. member for Bryanston—have in their minds a chimera of what is being envisaged. They see the registration and authorization that one must produce and the statements that one must submit annually, as a millstone around the neck, as a hindrance for an organization and as something intended only for rogues. This Bill is aimed at regulating collections and it is also meant for good, honest organizations with admirable people at the head. It is true, because all it is doing, is to regulate their relationship with the public and this ensures the necessary orderliness into a sphere where there is scientific evidence that there is insufficient control.

Clause 29 is not as far-reaching as the hon. member for Umbilo also thinks it is. Ultimately it is the Government’s task to protect the public from exploitation. If we have to stand between exploitation by an individual or organization on the one hand and the public on the other, any Government that is worth its salt will say: “I come forward and do my duty” even if it is unpopular as the hon. member is trying to imply. It does not, however, have to be unpopular, because we are dealing here with an authorization to collect funds that have been proved in history to be an asset to every organization that adopts it. Organizations that have nothing to do with welfare, have gone out of their way just to obtain a WO number because it ensures their credibility with the public. In this way this Bill will also ensure credibility with the public by means of registration. We shall be flexible in our implementation of this legislation and therefore there is no reason for concern.

I want to thank all speakers who have participated throughout the Second Reading, the Committee State and the Third Reading debates, very sincerely for their co-operation, for the objective manner in which they—with a few exceptions—approached the Bill and for their attempts to be constructive.

Finally, I want to announce that in order to balance the wrong impressions that may have been bruited abroad from this House, the exaggerated reactions that we received and the dire predictions that were made, and in order to ensure that this legislation is going to be implemented smoothly and easily in practice, I intend, as soon as we have reached the implementation stage of this legislation, to make available in large numbers an information booklet that is easy and simple to understand, so that every organization can study it and see what the implications of the legislation are, what steps they can take and where they can do so. I want to do this to make it easy for every collector of funds to do as he wishes within the framework of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I should also like to convey my thanks to you for the patience that you showed and I should also like to convey my thanks to everyone who made a positive contribution to the debate.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—119: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; 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.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. 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.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Malcomess D. J. N.;, Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Miller, R. B.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Pyper, P. A.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Sutton, W. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; 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, H. J. D.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wilkens, B. H.; Wood, N. B.

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

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

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Mr. Chairman, clause 1 of the Bill before the Committee should be read together with clause 2. It relates to the creation of yet another reference book to be carried by Black South Africans. In this instance the reference book is a document to be issued by the homelands authorities. Clause 1, read together with the following clause, stipulates that the document must, in the first instance, establish the identity of the individual concerned, and must also, in the second instance, establish the individual’s right to be where he is at the time. So, it becomes one of the types of reference book which Black South Africans will be obliged to carry in South Africa. It will regulate, as the other reference books do, his movements about his own country and it will mean that he cannot be without this document at any stage. Furthermore, the document will record whether he is or is not in employment, and he will be guilty of an offence and suffer penalties if he does not have it on him. As the hon. the Minister indicated the other night when this matter was discussed, if the form of the document does not meet with the approval of the Republican Government the individual concerned will be required to carry another form of identity document or reference book. In this way the document becomes part of the whole structure of influx control in South Africa. We heard the other night during the Second Reading debate that the data will be fed into the data bank of the Government in regard to reference books for the rest of the Republic. This then becomes part of the general system. I want to say, as I said the other night, that in view of the type of document which we are looking at, it in no way can be said that this document can be compared with an identity document or a travel document. The very nature of the document as well as the implications around the possession or non-possession of the document, gives it an entirely different meaning from the meaning which would normally be attributed to a travel document or an ordinary identity document. We have stated that we do not believe that this measure will make any material difference to the Black people in South Africa in regard to the operation of influx control and the carrying of reference books. As we said the other night, we believe it is a far cry from what some of the homelands leaders expected. It is indeed a far cry from what the country in general has expected. This is illustrated by some of the more optimistic statements which have been made over the past two years, namely that the Government was moving away from influx control and the system of reference books and passes, call them what you like, which we have known over the years. In that sense the Bill is a great disappointment.

We have also indicated that even after the publication of this Bill homeland leaders have expressed themselves as being thoroughly disappointed with what the Bill has to offer. I have also pointed out that the leader of kwaZulu, Chief Buthelezi, said right from the outset that they want no part of the system at all, just as they have said that they do not want any part in the entire independence programme of the Government. When this matter was discussed the other night a number of Government speakers criticized me for trying to be, as they termed it, the voice of kwaZulu or the voice of Chief Buthelezi. A number of speakers, amongst them the hon. member for Lydenburg, had a great many things to say about this fact. I make no apology whatsoever for being conscious of the need to respect and take notice of the feelings of the Zulu people. Apart from any other considerations we in the province of Natal believe that it is essential that we understand and that we find common ground with the major population group in the province.

Can you speak Zulu?

The hon. the Minister can make a speech later on. Our future in that province depends not on the operation of White arrogance or the security which the hon. the Ministers of Defence and Justice can offer, but very much on our ability to co-operate with our fellow human beings of all races and to secure a future in a common province. That is what we are trying to do. I think it behoves every public representative, certainly in the province of Natal, to ensure that he is keyed into the views and the attitudes of the majority group within that population. I therefore make no apology for being particularly conscious of the wishes and the feelings of the Zulu community.

I want to deal with some remarks made the other night by the hon. member for Lydenburg, who took part in this debate. For some reason I have not been able to discover, he is a senior member in the Government benches and the chairman of the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs. The other night, when we sat throughout the dinner interval, the hon. the Minister had sufficient confidence in the hon. member for Lydenburg to go and have his dinner, after which he thanked the hon. member for holding the fort for him while he was away. It is a pity that the hon. the Minister did not listen to the speech made by the hon. member for Lydenburg. I want to ask him whether he agrees with certain aspects of that speech. The hon. the Minister has consistently denied that this Bill has anything to do with citizenship or that there is any form of coercion or duress to be placed on homelands who do not accept independence. When reference was made to the fact that there had been objections on the part of Black leaders because the Bill would have the effect of making them foreigners in their own country, he also denied it.

I now want to refer to a section of the speech made by the hon. member for Lydenburg, who I think let the cat out of the bag the other night. He said—and I quote from his unrevised Hansard of 13 June—

Referring to me—

That is a very significant statement to make. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider that. I want to ask him to consider it particularly in the light of his assurances that he will not compel people to accept independence, and in the light of his statement that this Bill has nothing to do with citizenship and that it is not designed to make people foreigners in their own country. I want him to consider the implications of the statement made by the hon. member for Lydenburg and then I want the hon. the Minister to tell us whether he agrees with that statement or not. Certainly, this sort of statement is totally out of keeping with the spirit of the address of the hon. the Minister when he addressed the kwaZulu Assembly earlier this year. The hon. member for Lydenburg made some very peculiar statements. He said (Hansard, 13 June 1978)—

I then asked—

I then asked—

Natuurlik. Die agb. lid kan mos ’n kaart lees; of kan hy nie?

What is being said here by a senior spokesman on the Government benches is that the Chief Minister of kwaZulu must realize that he cannot regard the rest of South Africa as being his own country. There is a section of South Africa set aside for him, even though he does not accept the independence proposals of the Government.

Nevertheless, that is the section of South Africa he must regard as his own. It is a strange statement that we must look at a map to see what was traditionally the Zulus’. Can the hon. member really seriously say to this House that the fragmented bits of kwaZulu which appear on the map at the present time are all that is traditionally Zulu in South Africa? What about the rest of Natal? What about the other parts of South Africa? Can he say that those 40 fragmented bits of kwaZulu are all that a people who do not want the Government’s independence are entitled to in South Africa? Where is the logic of that sort of statement? Where can we hope to find any peaceful co-existence in South Africa if this is the sort of attitude which is adopted? I want the hon. the Minister to tell us, and I want him to weigh up his words very seriously indeed, because I believe the comments of the hon. member for Lydenburg have let the cat out of the bag. His words will reinforce more than anything else the suspicion about this particular measure, namely that it is merely part of the process designed to deprive Black people of their citizenship rights in South Africa. It is merely part of the process designed to restrict their movement in South Africa and to tie them to the particular homelands, whether or not they have accepted independence. I think this is very important indeed, particularly in view of the assurances given by this hon. Minister and by others. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, once again we have been listening to the voice of Ulundi. He states that he is not ashamed to speak on behalf of the Zulus here. I do not object to him wanting to speak on behalf of the Zulus and adopting a kind of “Natal Stand”. He may well be speaking on behalf of the Zulus, he may claim to do that, but I want to point out to him that in uttering these words he is uttering now, he is speaking against all the other Black leaders who have signified their approval of this Bill. Here, therefore, we have a classic case where the hon. member for Musgrave takes the side of kwaZulu, the side of Chief Minister Buthelezi, and speaks against the other Chief Ministers. He has chosen sides here. The Chief Ministers of the other Black States prefer this system. They have signified their approval. I made mention of this on Tuesday evening and read a quotation indicating the consent of the Chief Minister of Venda, the Chief Minister of Qwaqwa, president Mangope and all the others. There is no doubt that they have consented to it. There is no doubt that the draft legislation was sent to them and that they were asked to comment. Commentary was only received from one, as the hon. the Minister said. The others accepted the draft legislation as it reads at present. That is the essence of the matter. All the other homeland leaders accepted this legislation as it reads at present. [Interjections.] The draft legislation was referred to them and they were asked in writing whether they had any comment or recommendations in that regard. They accepted the legislation as it stands. Commentary was only received from one Chief Minister. The others all accepted it. Moreover—in case those hon. members do not know it—there is a document in which they confirmed their acceptance, a document which they in fact signed. What my argument really amounts to is that the hon. member for Musgrave endorses the standpoint of Chief Buthelezi against the other homelands. This is a typical “Natal Stand” that he is displaying here. [Interjections.] It is a typical “Natal stand”. After all, the hon. member for Musgrave puts himself forward here as the white Zulu. He is trying to bid for the favour of Captain Buthelezi on behalf of the Natalians. It seems to me that he has become afraid in Natal. [Interjections.] It seems to me as if he has been scared stiff by Chief Minister Buthelezi. To me, his actions are those of a scared man. The hon. member is now adopting a standpoint in opposition to the other homeland leaders. This is something which he must not fail to bear in mind. The hon. member for Musgrave, who has so much to say about how we must co-operate, discuss matters together and reach consensus, is now the one who is becoming afraid.

Last night I proved here with chapter and verse—and I just want to remind hon. members of this once again—that at the start of these negotiations the Government by no means gave the Black people the impression that a system would be established in terms of which influx control would be totally abolished. I again quote from the document containing the declaration issued jointly by the Prime Minister and the homeland leaders. It contains, inter alia, the following words—

The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say that he invited the committee to negotiate on this matter and conduct further discussions in this regard. I also went on to indicate how a unanimous statement was issued. I repeated—

However, what the hon. member for Musgrave must do—if his intentions are sincere with regard to this country, and with regard to co-operation between White and Black—is to ask Chief Minister Buthelezi why, right from the outset, he did not even wish to discuss this whole matter. Chief Minister Buthelezi did not wish to discuss this matter. According to the hon. member for Musgrave, Chief Minister Buthelezi was “shocked by this legislation”. He did not even wish to discuss it. [Interjections.] Chief Minister Buthelezi was invited, he was afforded the opportunity to discuss the matter. However, he did not even wish to discuss the merits of the matter. He summarily rejected it from the outset, whereas, as I indicated last night, the Government did everything in its power to discuss this matter with the Black people and obtain their co-operation in this regard.

I now wish to say to the hon. member for Musgrave that he must not come here and put on pious airs, as if only he and his party want to talk to the Black people. I want to state clearly that the NP’s intentions as regards the Black man are noble and good. The Government is striving to achieve good relations with the Black people in this country at almost any price. This is my viewpoint. It is also the viewpoint of the NP and the Government. However, the difference is that we are not hypocritical about it.

I have a little more to say to the hon. member for Musgrave in regard to what he said. The hon. member argues that according to the hon. the Minister, this legislation has nothing to do with citizenship. Does the hon. member really not understand what we are doing? We are changing the existing reference book system. Hon. members are constantly saying that we must not force everything down the throats of the Black people. We are here telling the homeland governments that they must issue a document and that the issue of that document will facilitate the movement and employment of their citizens in South Africa. It makes it easier for everyone.

How?

Surely the hon. member heard the hon. the Minister saying this in his second reading speech. I quoted it here.

The hon. member for Musgrave states: “Buthelezi said that he did not want to become a foreigner in his own country.” This measure has nothing to do with that. This is simply an interpretation by Chief Minister Buthelezi himself. His argument is just as irrelevant as that of the hon. member for Musgrave. This measure does not alter his present status. It brings him no closer to independence, nor does it take him further from independence. It does not force him into independence. We shall not force anyone into independence. What, then, are the hon. member’s difficulties?

Explain your speech last night!

I can explain it again but the hon. member will definitely not understand it. I said that no one would become a stranger in South Africa if he were to accept this document.

The hon. member discussed borders and those 40 spots on the map. If he were to take another look at the map he would see that after consolidation there would no longer be 40 spots but only about 10. The hon. member states that it is not correct to say that this is the land to which the Zulus have a historical claim. The hon. member put a number of questions to me and I now want to reply to them. However, I first wish to put a question to him. What does he say is the rightful claim of the Zulus to land in Natal?

The same as the Afrikaners!

The same as ours.

He states that they have the same claim to it as the Afrikaner.

Yes.

Do they not, then, recognize any homeland borders? They then do not recognize the borders of Zululand? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member for Lydenburg will explain to me why, if there is to be no change whatever in the position, the status or the citizenship of a Black man who changes his reference book for a document which is going to be issued by a homelands government, is it that the Government is so keen to persuade people to do this? What is the objective?

But they asked for it!

Who asked for it?

If you refer to the statement of 1975 you will see that the homeland leaders asked for it.

The homeland leaders wanted the whole situation as far as influx control is concerned, reviewed. That is what they asked for. When they had the meeting with the Prime Minister and the …

I suppose you were there.

I have seen all the documents. What they were pressing for, was a relaxation of the laws which prohibited their citizens from coming in to work in the urban areas. This was for one very good economic reason: There are no jobs in the homelands.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? Is the hon. member in favour of abolishing all measures which control this?

I made a speech about this only yesterday. This party is in favour of the removal of influx control. We believe that it is an elementary right for a man to move around his own country and to sell his labour in the best market.

So you do not want any control?

Obviously I am not talking about foreigners. Every country has the right to prevent foreigners from coming in to work in its own territory. That happens in America, England, Germany, etc.

The Transkei?

I wish the hon. member would allow me to make my own speech.

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue like this to carry on.

I have told him—and I cannot be any clearer—that were are in favour of people having the right to move around their country. We realize that because of years and years of the implementation of laws restricting mobility, there are obviously going to be transitional difficulties, and it is our desire that those transitional difficulties be minimized. The only way one can do that is by taking a number of other steps at the same time. One has to build houses.

Order! I allowed the hon. member for Musgrave to carry on with wide-ranging remarks in this respect, but the hon. member must please come back to the clause.

Sir, if I may say so, you allowed the hon. member for Lydenburg to carry on with even wider-ranging comments.

Order! I allowed the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member for Lydenburg to do so, but the hon. member must please come back to clause 1.

Right, I shall come back to clause 1. There is a document to be issued in terms of clause 1 which is going to replace the reference book for anybody who wants it, because it is not only those persons who are now citizens of independent territories who can get the document issued by the homelands. It is anybody who can, because in terms of the Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970, I think it was, everybody obtained dual citizenship, South African citizenship and the citizenship of homelands. It was only when homelands became independent that citizens lost their South African citizenship. There are, however, six homelands that are not independent, and therefore those people still have dual citizenship. It is the intention of the Government to try to persuade, entice or induce people to surrender their South African reference books and to take out the documents issued by the homelands.

The word “entice” is wrong.

That is the objective of this clause. The hon. member for Lydenburg, who professes to know so much, says “no”. Let me tell him, however, that when a child is born these days officials are not keen on issuing South African documents. When a child reaches the age of 16 and has to take out a reference book, he is told he must take out a homeland reference book. Indeed, he is supposed to be given a two-year period in order to change over if the relevant territory has already become independent. All sorts of inducements are being offered. I do not know, however, whether jobs are going to be made easier and I do not know whether the tenancy of houses is going to be made any easier for people who hold homeland documents instead of South African reference books. From what the hon. the Minister’s predecessor said in this House a few years ago, I suspect that that is going to be the case. Preference is going to be given to Africans who hold homeland documents because there is a psychological effect in making a man carry a document which no longer refers to him as a South African citizen, referring to him instead as a citizen of a homeland. That is obviously the intention of this Government. It has been said, from the Prime Minister down, that there will be no more Black citizens in South Africa eventually.

Then you can accept it.

Certainly not! We do not accept that. Anyway, that is my whole point. I want to conclude—because I do not think I will have time to say anything else— by telling the hon. member for Lydenburg that I spoke to Chief Mopeli yesterday. I was able to get hold of him. He denies categorically, just as Chief Phatudi denied categorically, that he accepts this legislation. In fact, he told me that a Qwaqwa Legislative Assembly meeting which was held in May—I think he said 13 May, I am not quite sure of the date, but certainly in May—unanimously rejected this legislation. So what is the hon. member talking about? He tells us that everybody has unanimously accepted it. It is not true. What is true is that everybody wanted a change in the system, certainly, but Chief Buthelezi recognized immediately that there was going to be no improvement in the situation. He knew that from what the hon. the Prime Minister had said. Everybody did, however, want a change in the system. They wanted it to be made easier for their homeland citizens to come into the White Republic to take up the jobs that are so desperately needed. We now have definite proof that both Chief Phatudi and Chief Mopeli have rejected this legislation. The hon. member for Lydenburg must therefore please stop standing up and giving the House incorrect information about the reaction of the homeland leaders to this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the lovers’ quarrel between hon. members on the other side of the House. It seems to me that the matter is now settled between those two. Earlier I had thought that it was on, but now it seems to me that it is off again.

Firstly, I want to refer to the hon. member for Musgrave. He objected to our feeding the information into our data bank so as to have the necessary information at our disposal. However, it is not only information concerning these people that we feed into our data bank, but also information concerning Malawians, Mozambicans and anyone else, because we need that information for control purposes. We need to know who is in the country. That is quite normal. As far as Whites are concerned we feed the necessary information into the computer concerning every person who enters the country with a temporary visa or a temporary residence permit—I myself was at one stage attached to that department and that is why I know. When a person’s time has expired, the computer throws out the man’s name and we know that from that day he is in South Africa illegally. The aim is not to alienate or punish a person in that way. It is a question of order and orderliness in a civilized community. That is the aim. This by no means constitutes discrimination, because it is done in regard to both the Whites and the Blacks. The aim is to maintain an orderly community. Heaven knows that a country with a population as diverse as that of South Africa and everything that that entails, needs an ordered community more than a country with a homogeneous population. Let us have no illusions about that.

I therefore reject the idea that this casts any kind of reflection on the people, that it constitutes discrimination, that it is unjust to people or anything of that nature.

I did not say that it casts a reflection on people. I stated it as a fact.

The hon. member said it in a negative sense. He meant it as criticism and not as a positive suggestion. That is my first argument.

Secondly, it seems to me that the hon. member for Musgrave has one task and one task only in this House in the field of plural relations, namely to make it as difficult as possible for the Government and the Whites to build up good relations with the Black people in South Africa. [Interjections.] He does this in regard to every matter concerning which we negotiate with the people concerned to the best of our ability, as in this case. We conducted discussions with them and appointed a committee from among them to institute an investigation. The committee eventually issued a report which had been accepted unanimously by all three members. The document was also signed by all three. Three signatures appear thereon. The hon. member for Lydenburg is therefore correct. Subsequently we brought together all the homeland leaders, except Chief Minister Buthelezi who wanted nothing to do with it from the outset. I am not referring to him in regard to this process. They were all brought together and all accepted it. They issued a joint statement to the effect that they all accepted it.

What about their present attitude?

Just wait a moment. All that was disposed of. Subsequently, at the beginning of this year, we sent the first draft Bill to all of them. One reacted negatively. The others did not react. If a man does not react then I take it that he is satisfied.

Did they not react at all?

Some of them did not react. If I send the hon. member a notice and he does not react to it I take it that he agrees with it—otherwise he would have reacted.

Did you ask them for their consent?

The hon. member must not come along with technical points now. As I said, some did not react whereas one reacted negatively. Others, again, reacted positively.

What is the position now? Now the hon. member wants to come and tell me the story that because they did not react, all of them are suddenly opposed to it. I want to put it like this: They were in favour of this legislation until the hon. members opposite prompted them. Until that stage they were in favour of this legislation. [Interjections.]

They are sabotaging it.

Let us put the matter in perspective. I do not wish to say a great deal more about this because I think we must accept that we differ from each other. The Official Opposition in Parliament is not in favour of any form of influx control. In other words—I state it clearly—White area, Coloured areas and Asian areas can be flooded by Blacks from any area without any control of any nature as far as they are concerned. According to them a natural distribution must take place in South Africa in all respects. This is the standpoint of the Official Opposition. To date they have not come up with any other standpoint in this debate.

There is one final matter I want to touch on. This Bill has nothing to do with citizenship. Irrespective of who has said what, it has nothing to do with that. It concerns South African citizens, both White and Black. The homeland Governments are now being authorized to issue travel documents or identity documents to their people with which they can travel and which we as the Government will accept and recognize in terms of our agreement. That is the essence of the matter. It has nothing to do with citizenship. In all fairness, I want to say that citizenship is not at issue in this Bill. Nowhere is reference made to it. Citizenship only comes into the picture when a homeland becomes independent, and then citizenship is discussed by the respective Governments and a decision is taken. Therefore, to read anything into this Bill to the effect that it constitutes an effort to enforce citizenship in one direction or another, is tantamount to reading into it something which it does not contain. It only concerns a document which may take the form of a travel document or an identity document.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has not responded to my request to react to the remarks made by the hon. member for Lydenburg the night before last. It relates to the Chief Minister of kwaZulu and to kwaZulu.

Mr. Chairman, the question the hon. member puts to me fully confirms the standpoint I have just stated, namely that he has but one aim here and that is to stir up trouble between Black and White in South Africa. That is all that that demonstrates. The hon. member knows for a fact that it may be bad enough if the hon. member for Lydenburg says something, but if he can get the Minister to endorse it, he will go and give it to Chief Buthelezi in an effort to break down the relations between Buthelezi and myself. That is his idea.

Repudiate him.

I have already pointed out that at this moment the Bill concerns Black and White South Africans. Therefore, as far as citizenship is concerned the Zulus and the Whites—all of us—are at the moment South African citizens. When Chief Minister Buthelezi travels overseas he travels with a South African passport and not with a Zulu passport. Therefore all of us are at this moment South African citizens. As such we are citizens of South Africa. However, we also have geographical documents and among all the homeland leaders Chief Minister Buthelezi is the one who feels strongest about this. The Zulus have made more progress than anyone else in issuing their own documents and citizenship certificates to themselves. In fact, more documents have been issued to Zulus than to any other nation in South Africa. Indeed, Chief Minister Buthelezi fought an election on the basis of that certificate which confirms the identity of the Zulus.

Like any South African.

Yes, I have already said so. That is, after all, the legal position, but in spite of that Chief Minister Buthelezi is strongly in favour of his people, the Zulu people, identifying themselves with the Zulu culture and the Zulu nation. That is why he has them take out Zulu citizenship documents. I repeat that this is the homeland which has made most progress in this regard. Therefore we do not differ from each other but that hon. member is trying to find a means whereby to trouble the sound relations developing between White and Black in South Africa. I shall always condemn him for that because he is making political capital out of national relations in South Africa and to me that is contemptible.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to use the opportunity to speak on clause 1 and to make the attitude of our party quite clear in regard to this legislation. I have stated during Second Reading that there is an ideological difference between us and the Government and between us and the Official Opposition. Here the hon. the Minister has come with a Bill which seeks to give power to another Government to issue documents, documents which may be used in substitution for the reference books at present in use. Now, this Bill is regarded and is commonly accepted by all in the House as a step towards the final development of the Government’s policy, i.e. independence for all the Black areas in South Africa, without a link between them. That is where we differ totally and completely from the Government. We can accept that there shall be …

Order! The hon. member must please confine himself to clause 1.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask your ruling on this? I am the first speaker from this party. I wish to state my attitude towards the legislation in the same way as was done by the hon. member for Musgrave.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make it clear to the hon. the Minister that we regard it as the ultimate goal in South Africa that when these groups of people—one may call them States or whatever one wishes—have developed to independence or not, we will find a mechanism to create a link between them. For that reason we oppose this Bill, because the Government has no conception of the creation of any kind of link. I want to make it quite clear that is the situation. At the same time we differ from the Official Opposition. I do not quite know whether they are in favour of influx control or not. They say they would like to phase it out. Whether they are in favour of homeland boundaries or not, I do not know, but I want to make it quite clear that we stand for recognizable living areas. They may be changed by negotiation and they may be altered, but there should be an area for every group to live in. In so far as influx control is concerned, I believe it will be in the interests of the urban Black people themselves to maintain some kind of control in order to relieve pressure on housing, employment, etc. There is a difference between us and the Government and between us and the Official Opposition and therefore we will record our objection to this clause for our own reasons.

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

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated during the discussion of the previous clause, these two clauses should be read together, and I now rise to move the amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Clause 2 is linked very much with clause 1 in that it deals with the new reference book that is being issued by the homeland authority. The clause provides that the reference book should establish two things, i.e. the person’s identity and also his right to be where he is. I do not wish to repeat old arguments, but I think the amendment speaks for itself. We seek to give that person the option to choose whether he wants to have a reference book which is issued and approved by the homeland authority or whether he wants to have a reference book which is issued, in terms of the other powers the Government has, by a Bantu Commissioner or whoever it might be. The other night I pointed out that if one looks at the various Acts which govern the operation of reference books and influx control, one can find some six types of documents of which a person can carry any one. All this amendment therefore seeks to do, is to give a person in a homeland, who would prefer to have his reference book issued by another authority, the option to rather have such a reference book than the one issued by the homeland authority. The purpose once again—and I want to be quite frank about this—is to indicate that we do not believe that a person should be forced into a situation. The Government has said that they intend, by way of this legislation, to phase into operation a system according to which people will get their reference books from their homeland authority. We believe that one has to look at South Africa as a whole and we therefore do not believe that a situation should exist where, as time goes along, they will be forced willy-nilly to accept the reference book from their homeland authority and, by doing so, forfeit their right to be regarded as citizens or as part and parcel of the rest of South Africa. We therefore seek to give that person the option to decide whether or not he wants the type of reference book for which this Bill is specifically designed or whether he wants any other type of reference book. The amendment further serves to emphasize our attitude that we do not wish a fragmentation to take place and that we do not want a situation where the person who does not accept separate homeland citizenship, will be forced to accept a particular document.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. the Minister to clarify the point that is raised in this amendment, because it does seem to me as though it might be an unnecessary amendment in that the law, as it now stands, is quite clear. I want the hon. the Minister to set it out for me so that I can understand exactly what he is saying. It would appear that the situation now is that a Black person, living in a homeland, is a South African citizen in terms of our present law. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what it is that decides whether he shall be issued with a reference book, as would happen normally before this Bill is passed, or with one of the new documents which it is now being proposed that powers should be given to the homelands Governments to issue. Where does the onus or the choice lie in this respect? A young person who is now, for the first time, acquiring such a document must have a reference book or a document, as is proposed in this legislation. I want to know from the hon. the Minister who decides about this, whether he is forced to accept one or the other, whether he has a choice and whether he may, at one time or another, change from the one to the other.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept the amendment by the hon. member for Musgrave because it is useless and unnecessary. The hon. member’s amendment begins with the words: “Provided that a Bantu who is a South African citizen …” and in view of that I should like to say that this whole Bill only applies to South African citizens. This is therefore the hon. member’s first blunder. No one else is affected by this legislation. The statement that a Bantu is therefore a South African citizen is unnecessary in this regard, because the legislation as a whole applies solely to South African citizens. It does not apply to the independent homelands but only to self-governing Black areas. Secondly, I want to point out that this Bill is enabling legislation and affords the Black governments the opportunity to pass legislation in their own Parliaments if they should so decide, which would give them the power to issue a document to people who at present enjoy the citizenship of their homeland. That is the essence of the Bill and is in fact all that it lays down. What does this mean in practice? These people can already exercise the choice which the hon. member for Musgrave wants to give to them by means of his amendment, in two forms. In the first place, the homeland Government of such a person must pass legislation in their Parliament to take upon themselves the power to issue such a document. Subsequently such a person has the choice of applying or not applying for such a document. If he applies, he does so voluntarily and he will obtain such a document. However, if he does not apply, the existing reference book remains valid. Therefore there is no obligation on him to take the other document. What, then, is the aim of the hon. member’s amendment? It is a totally useless and futile amendment.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is intended that any inducements, apart from the enabling power which is given to the homeland Governments to issue the documents, will be offered to them? I am referring to inducements such as giving the assurance that the holders of this identity document will have a better chance of getting jobs, will be accepted for contract labour more readily than those without, and so on.

My standpoint is that the benefits attached to this identity document are all defined in this Bill. No other preference will be given to the holders of this document in regard to any other matters. The preferences which the document entails are expounded in clause 13 and I want to refer the hon. member to that clause once again. The clause provides that this identity document will be accepted for certain purposes whereas the other documents will not be accepted. That is the only preference there will be. We can argue this matter further when we come to clause 13. However, I want to give hon. members the assurance that we have no intention of giving this document preference to other documents.

No instructions to officials?

No. The essence of the matter is that the Black homeland leaders originally came to us and said that they did not like the reference book system and that they wanted to change and improve it. We then told them to go and investigate the matter themselves and determine what the nature of the document should be.

They then came back with the recommendation as to the type of document they wanted in place of the pass book. The Bill makes it possible for them to put such a document into operation. In other words, it is a document which they themselves compiled and with which they want to replace their previous documents. The hon. members can now carry on arguing about that. That is the end of the story.

What, then, is the difference between this document and the pass book?

The difference between the two will depend on what the Governments put in this document. I do not prescribe what must be contained in this document. Show me any prescription in the Bill. The only condition I set is that if the document does not contain the necessary information that we require to implement influx control, we shall not be able to accept it in the place of the pass book. Influx control will and must be implemented because the Government believes that it is essential.

Mr. Chairman, I am completely dissatisfied with the hon. the Minister’s reply. He cannot, surely, imagine that we must accept that it is the colour, the shape, the size and the nomenclature …

And the context.

Now we are getting to it.

I never said otherwise.

You said that they did not like the influx control system. What will be in this new document which will make the influx control system any different from what it was before? We only have a new document with a new name. It may have a different type of description, but it has to contain two or three essential things which the hon. the Minister wants, e.g. the identity of the man and where he is allowed to be. That is exactly what the reference book contains. We have all seen reference books. They contain a photograph, a fingerprint, the man’s tribal origin, where he is allowed to be and his identity. What on earth then satisfies those homeland leaders who according to the arguments of the hon. member for Lydenburg and the hon. the Minister are satisfied with this new format when exactly the same restrictions as far as movement are concerned apply? Will the hon. the Minister not grant me that it was, in fact, the restrictions on movement that the homeland leaders objected to and wanted changed, rather than the format and the name of the document which people have to carry?

Mr. Chairman, I am now going to explain for the last time, because after all, I cannot keep on explaining. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton is a good scholar and ought therefore to understand. The essence of the matter is that the Black leaders originally said that they did not like influx control. The hon. the Prime Minister then invited them to discuss the necessity for influx control with him. The matter was then argued and eventually it was agreed that influx control was in fact necessary. However, the Black leaders did not wish to accept it in this specific form. The hon. the Prime Minister then proposed that they appoint a committee of three to work out a better system of influx control, a system to their taste. They did so and later made recommendations in this regard. In my Second Reading speech I tried to indicate what these recommendations would entail in practice. Therefore the people asked for a different form of influx control. However, Chief Minister Buthelezi was consistently opposed to it. The others said that they wanted a document of their own rather than our document. They are here being afforded the opportunity to issue a document which contains the same information as our book of life, for example data relating to the blood group, allergies, driver’s licences, etc. It could be the precise equivalent of our book of life. I want to state quite clearly that if those two items of information which will enable me to implement influx control, namely, a person’s right to be present at a certain place, and his identity, appear in that document, I shall be prepared to accept it. The hon. member also referred to those two matters.

If those two items of information appear therein they can also include in it any other data for their own purposes and for the records of their Government, for example a person’s marital status, the number of his children and his fire-arm licences. What they want to include in it is their affair. In other words, they can compile a document equivalent to those of any other civilized country in the world. But if those two items of information appear therein I shall accept it in the place of the reference book. The Black Governments have a choice whether to introduce this document or not and their citizens have a choice whether they want to apply for it or not. In other words, the choice the hon. member for Musgrave wants to introduce by means of his amendment is already incorporated in the clause. His amendment is therefore futile and he is merely wasting time by moving it.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

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

1. (1) On page 9, in line 36, after “Bantu” to insert:

1. (2) on page 9, in line 40, after “such” to insert “reference book or such”;
2. (3) on page 9, in line 41, after “such” to insert “reference book or such”;
3. (4) on page 9, in line 42, to omit “5” and to substitute “20”.

The purpose of the amendments is to bring the ordinary South African reference book into line with the document issued by a homelands government as far as the very small additional privilege which is being given to the holder of a homelands document is concerned, namely to allow an African who is unable to produce such a document on demand the right to ask whomever is asking for the document—presumably a policeman—to accompany him to wherever this document is, as long as it is within a radius of five kilometres. We are moving this amendment to extend the five kilometres to 20 kilometres. The reason for this is obvious. As the five kilometre proviso stands, it will really only allow a man to be within a very short distance of either his home or, if he happens to be working in a factory in a White area, from the factory, or if he is a domestic employee, from the household where he is working. If he happens to be more than five kilometres away he is not given the protection of this clause and I find that absurd, because the majority of employees, shall we say, who work in Johannesburg, live in Soweto. We will now leave aside the domestic employees. The majority do live in Soweto, however, and Soweto is a good deal more than five kilometres from Johannesburg. At its nearest point it is something like 16 kilometres away and at its furthermost point it is 24 kilometres away. This is the reason why we are trying to extend the distance to 20 km. Give the man a chance if he has left his reference book or even his homeland identity document behind where he happens to live, to produce that document. He could be a migrant worker living in one of the hostels or he could be an ordinary South African citizen living in a house in Soweto.

I mentioned in the Second Reading debate that we had something like 400 000 convictions under pass laws, of which about half were for the non-production of valid documents per se. The others were for curfew infringements and tax and trespass infringements, but all to do with the production of documents. The real so-called reference book or pass law infringements came to about 250 000. This is a cause of tremendous racial friction, and quite a proportion of those infringements are due to the fact that people are lawfully in the area, but cannot produce their documents on demand because they have left them behind. This is a discriminatory measure. If a White man has to produce his identity book he is given seven days in which to do so.

I realize the difficulties, that these people do not always have quite such fixed places of abode, etc., but there is also a very considerable number today of urban Africans, many of whom are second generation urban-born people. I think it is absolutely wrong that these people should be hauled off in police vans because they cannot produce their documents. They then have to be taken to the aid centres and there, if they can prove that they are in lawful employment and that their documents are at home, they are then spared further court proceedings. All this still means that a man loses a day at work. Very often it may mean that he loses his employment. It is certainly extremely irritating to him as a human being and is, as I say, a considerable cause of racial friction. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to consider first of all extending this privilege. If he says there is no additional inducement that is being brought to bear on Africans to take out the homeland documents rather than the South African reference books, he must extend the same privilege to all the Africans in urban areas, and he must also extend it to cover a circumference which will be of some practical value. A radius of five kilometres is of very little practical value. It will help the man who is picked up as, indeed, one of my employees was picked up right outside the gate of my house and, having informed the police that his pass book was in his room, he was still not allowed to get it. He was thrown into the van and he was taken to the Norwood police station where I managed to rescue him the next day, after reminding the man in charge that standing police instructions which had been in force for many years, but which the young policemen often ignore, are that a man should be given a reasonable opportunity of producing his documents. I fought that case in court and I got the man discharged on the strength of the standing instructions. That was not all, however. He was found guilty, cautioned and discharged. This provision at least, is going to be an improvement, but only providing—because I know of the appeal case that the hon. the Minister mentioned in the Second Reading debate—it is made of some practical implementation and of general application.

Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the argument of the hon. member for Houghton. As far as I am concerned the distance of 20 km is just as arbitrary as a distance of 5 km. It is identical. Therefore the arbitrary principle is not eliminated in this way. What is the aim of this provision? The aim is to prevent the story, the accusation that is so often hurled at us and which is so terribly exaggerated abroad, the allegation that in front of his own door in the street, a Black man …

It happened to me!

I am making no allegation against the hon. member for Houghton. She moved the amendment. However, I am speaking in general, but I have to look at her because she was the one who spoke. The argument is constantly being advanced that a Black man can be talking to his friends in the street before his own front door, that he happens not to have his jacket with him—it may be lying in his room—and that the police can suddenly turn up and ask him for his identity document. If he is unable to show the document immediately, he goes straight to gaol. That is the story the world hears. This is the alleged cruelty of the NP Government and the State. The aim of this Bill, of this specific provision, is just this, namely the prevention and elimination of incidents of this nature. That is why I moved this amendment.

The proposed distance of 5 km makes it possible for a Black man to move within a specific radius from his area of residence in a reasonable way without the obligation to have his document with him at all times. I want to explain immediately how the system will work in practice, as I see it. Control is necessary. That is something we must fully understand. We are living in a time when there are terrorists and hostile people who infiltrate into the country daily from across our borders. It is in the interests of the security of the country that we exercise control in order to ensure that the people who are here, are here legally. Therefore it is not merely an issue of influx control; it is also an issue of national security.

If, therefore, the police stop a Black man somewhere and ask him for his identity document, the Black man concerned, if unable to produce the document immediately, can go to his place of residence, accompanied by the police—if, of course, it is within the specified radius of 5 km—in order to obtain the required document and show it to the police. Therefore in this way no offence is committed and there is no prosecution either. Therefore the matter is disposed of and forgotten.

However, if the Black man in question is unable to produce the required identity document at that stage he is committing an offence. He has borne false witness, has tried to commit fraud. That is why I have introduced this provision into the Bill. The hon. member also asks why a period of seven days grace is not provided. However, we must be practical. Does the hon. member think that if a person is at a place illegally and is caught by the police without his identity document he will ever be seen again if the police tell him that he has to produce his identity document within seven days? Will that man ever be seen again?

Why allow White people that and not Black people?

Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member really want to maintain now that the two are identical? She really must not be so unfair. Surely she, too, is a practical person.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, it is as clear as daylight to me that the hon. member for Houghton adopts the same standpoint as certain other hon. members of her party. I therefore do not wish to belabour her on this point. The fact remains, however, that as it works in practice, if the Black man in question is encountered somewhere legally and is in possession of his identity document he will be afforded the opportunity to produce it. However, if he is somewhere illegally whereas he knows that he is there illegally and is not in possession of an identity document, does the hon. member really think that he will come back within seven days and admit that he is not in possession of an identity document and then, on top of that, request the police to prosecute him? After all, one has to have both feet on the ground and not move in an idealistic dreamworld. We must be practical. We must administer the legislation. We must not simply write it down in theory but must also administer it and see to it that it can be implemented in practice.

Does the hon. the Minister really mean to say that there is no difference between the identity book carried by Whites and the identity book carried by Blacks?

The identity document for Whites is not a necessity; not at the moment. At the moment it is not yet necessary for him to have it with him at all times. Nevertheless he is in his own area in his own White living area. If he were to enter a Black area it would be necessary for him to be in possession of a permit which he would have to carry with him throughout. [Interjections.] If a White person enters Soweto it is necessary for him, too, to obtain a permit which he must have with him at all times. If a Black man enters a White area he too must be in possession of a document which he must have with him at all times. Therefore there is no discrimination.

The hon. member went on to refer to the distance of 20 miles and spoke about Soweto. However important Soweto may be—and I concede at once that Soweto is extremely important—I cannot introduce legislation for Soweto exclusively. I am dealing with a country, a whole country. There are certain parts of Johannesburg and there are certain parts of Soweto that are also more than 20 km from each other. The distance from the most distant parts of Johannesburg to the most distant parts of Soweto is more than 20 km. In other words, this is an arbitrary argument. Why 20, why not 25, why not 40, why not 100 km? Where does one draw the line? Consequently I want to say that the aim here is to remove this slur on us that we arrest and take away a man standing innocently before his front door or going for a walk with his wife in the evening to relax and get a breath of fresh air, and who does not carry his documents with him like a slave. To refute that charge against South Africa we have effected this change which states that he has a radius of 5 km at his disposal.

The man who lives in Soweto and works in Johannesburg must know that he is going beyond the 5 km radius and that he must take the documents to work. He must know that from today; he already knows it. He is already being given notice that he must carry that document with him to Johannesburg because his place of employment is further than 5 km from his home. He does know this; surely there is nothing sinister in regard to the matter. But he will also know that if he is in the vicinity of his house or visits the neighbours around the comer, he need not have it with him, because this clause covers that. That is the essence, the principle of the matter. I have nothing more to say about the matter.

I am just going to say that I presume that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment as far as the 20 km is concerned?

No.

But now all his other arguments surely apply equally to the man who carries a reference book and to the man who carries the homeland documents? Then will you accept those amendments?

I shall reply to that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make exactly the same point. To be consistent, the hon. the Minister, when he rejected my amendment to clause 2, said it was unnecessary because in fact there would be no difference. He said it was unnecessary that there should be an option as to whether a man has a reference book from a homeland or a reference book issued in the rest of the Republic. He rejected that amendment because he said that there would be no difference. I am therefore going to reinforce the argument of the hon. member for Houghton for the sake of consistency. A quarter of an hour ago the Minister used that argument; why now should not the same radius apply to a person holding a reference book not issued by a homeland?

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply at once and reply honestly, as is my wont. I want to promote the new document. Does anyone want it put more simply? I want to promote it. Now the hon. member again has something he can go and write in the newspapers. I want to promote the new document because it is a document which, when issued, will be issued by the homeland Government itself, will recognize the authority of the homeland Government and will reinforce the Government of the homeland. Hon. members know me well enough; I am a man who tells them the truth very honestly, and I have always told it to them. The hon. member is smiling happily; he now has something else to go and tell the Black people who want to bedevil relations between White and Black. That is the meanness of his role. [Interjections.] Yes, that is the meanness of his role.

What are the facts? I am now referring to the choice. I shall use the English expression and call it a package deal. This legislation does not concern the reference book. This legislation is an enabling measure to introduce another document issued by the homeland Government to replace the reference book under certain circumstances. Therefore either the old reference book system, with everything it entails, must be accepted as a whole, or the new system, with everything that entails, must be accepted. The old reference book system implies that the document must be carried with one at all times. The new system implies that one need not carry the document with one; that one is free not to carry it within a radius of 5 km. When one makes one’s choice, one chooses the reference book bearing in mind that one has to carry it with one at all times, or one chooses the new document, which one need not carry within 5 km from one’s home. One has that choice and one can exercise it freely.

Amendment (1) put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—22: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

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

Noes—108: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; 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.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C. Heyns, J. H. Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koomhof, 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.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; 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, H. J. D.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; 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.

Amendment negatived and amendments (2) and (3) dropped.

On amendment (4),

Question put: That “5” stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—107: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; 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.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. 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.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; 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, H. J. D.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; 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—22: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, the Official Opposition is in favour of the deletion of the word “Bantu” from our legislation as proposed in this clause. However, there are certain consequences of this concerning which we have some misgivings. Under paragraph (e) for example, reference will only be made to “chief commissioner” from now on. If that word appears in a document which does not relate specifically to the matters dealt with by this legislation, confusion could easily arise as to what “chief commissioner” would mean in such an instance. The same applies to the expression “director of labour”. This could be confused with posts in the Department of Labour in other parts of the country. We have the same difficulties with regard to “commissioner’s court” and “divorce court”. As far as clause 17(1)(n) is concerned: We propose that it be deleted. It replaces the word “Bantu homelands” by the word “Black States”. Our objection is not to the word “Black” but to the word “States”. This is because anyone who is unacquainted with the way in which we give names in South Africa would immediately gain the impression that what we had here was an independent state, viz. recognized as such internationally. It may be the ideal, the aim and the motivation of the Government to have all of them move in that direction, but to refer to Basutho Qwaqwa, or the homeland for the Swazis, or even to Vendaland, as a state at this stage, seems a little far-fetched. I may put it for the consideration of the hon. the Minister that if the people abroad who hear these things find out that in fact a Black state means something entirely different in the South African context to what it means in the international context, it could create a credibility gap. Therefore we are not raising this matter with the aim of causing problems. Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept the amendment because I do not agree with the hon. member’s argument. I want to begin by saying that the concepts “Hoofkommissaris” and “Kommisaris”, or perhaps to an even greater extent the English concept “Commissioner”, as used by the Blacks, refer to one person only and that is the “Bantu Commissioner”. The Blacks are not confused at all. If anyone talks to them about a “Commissioner”, they know that it is the Bantu Commissioner who is being referred to. As far as the Whites are concerned there are few occasions where one uses the word “Commissioner”, unless one add something to it, for example the Commissioner of Police, a Public Service Commissioner, or whatever. However, as soon as one uses the word “Commissioner” without any qualification, I assume that it will soon become generally known as a Commissioner dealing with Black affairs, in other words, the Bantu Affairs Commissioner.

The hon. member also objects to the title “Director of Labour”. He states that this could be confused with a White department. However, there is no such post as Director of Labour in the Department of Labour. It is true that there are labour inspectors in that department but the word “Director” is not used there. Therefore, confusion in that regard is impossible and consequently the hon. member’s argument lapses.

As far as the use of the word “state” in this regard is concerned, this word was considered very carefully and at great length. The concept “homeland”—“tuisland”, has already acquired a connotation of inferiority in the eyes of the Black man and also in the eyes of the outside world. I read the other day—I know this is a delicate subject, but I must touch on it—that Pres. Carter is in favour of a “homeland” for the Palestinians in Israel and that he is not in favour of a state for them. He said: “It is only for a homeland that I am asking, not a state.”

Therefore in his mind, too, a “homeland” occupies a position inferior to that of a “state”. To him a “homeland” denotes something less than a “state”. Even today in America—I am not referring to the old days, but to the present—they speak of “the State of Nebraska” and “the State of Indiana”, and “the State of Michigan”. In Australia they speak of “the State of Western Australia”, although none of these are sovereign, independent, internationally recognized states. Therefore it is good enough for America and for Australia, and what we have in mind for the Black people of South Africa, is the equivalent thereof. What we ultimately have in mind is more than those states have in mind. What we have in mind is that the states to which I am now referring, and which are at present still self-governing Black states, will eventually become sovereign independent Black states and as such capable of achieving international recognition; a higher status, than, the “states” of America. That is why I am retaining the word “states”. I do not think it is unjustified.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to repeat old arguments at length, but I would like to comment on the sensitivity which the hon. the Minister has shown towards me on a couple of occasions this afternoon in relation to this particular measure.

To all measures.

The hon. the Minister is being less than generous and less than truthful when he says that. He talks about “all measures”, but only the other day we on this side of the House were supporting the first of these measures, dealing with the 99-year lease system, which was introduced by the hon. the Minister. I think he is not being fair when he says that we are intent upon showing up the Government’s policy and trying to harm race relations in respect of every measure. The hon. the Minister has been in politics long enough for him to know that there are very profound philosophical differences between us on this side of the House and hon. members opposite. I think the hon. the Minister must know that I am interested in the affairs of his department and in the whole question of race relations in South Africa. I feel just as deeply about my point of view as he does about his. My contribution is therefore designed at trying to improve the situation in South Africa by trying to bring about better race relations. We may differ philosophically, but let us not challenge or question each other’s sincerity in respect of the points of view that we offer.

In regard to this particular measure, I want to say that we have listened to the arguments through the Second Reading stage and the Committee Stage and that nothing that has been said by the hon. the Minister has changed our attitude towards the Bill. We do not believe that the Bill is going to achieve the great objectives that were once held out for it. We do believe, however, that there certainly has been a very great need to alleviate the hardships that people have experienced under the whole operation of influx control. We can see nothing in this measure, however, which is going to contribute to that. Changes are going to be made, the responsibility is shifted and it will be shifted more and more—the hon. the Minister has been quite frank about that—to the homeland Governments to issue reference books, but when one looks at the whole operation of the system, it does not really matter who issues the reference book …

It is not going to be called a reference book.

It does not matter what it is going to be called; it is going to be called an identity document?

They are certainly not going to call it a reference book. Why do you want …

The hon. the Minister is now being sensitive again. Let us call it the document that is going to be issued…

That is more reasonable.

The document that is going to be issued—if that satisfies the sensitivity of the hon. the Minister—is going to be issued more and more by the homelands authority. It does not matter very much which authority issues the document; it is the purpose the document is for and the effect the document will have on the people that concerns us. From the definition given of this document, we know that it has to establish, in the first place, the identity of the person concerned and, secondly, it has to establish the right of that person to be where he is. The second element is the important one. This document will not only be an identity document, but it will also have to establish a person’s right to be where he is in South Africa. So, wherever he is, the possession of the document will establish his right to be there. If he has not got the document, it obviously follows that in terms of the legislation he has no right to be there. We say that this is totally discriminatory. It does not operate in the case of Whites. We can move around the country as we like. If we have not got a document—our identity card or book of life—on us it does not mean that we have not got the right to be in Durban, in Cape Town or in Johannesburg. We are just there. However, as far as the Black man is concerned …

And if you want to go to Soweto?

Soweto is part of the whole complex and one needs a permit to go into the city. However, as far as Blacks are concerned, when they move from the homeland areas into the urban areas they do so in order to seek employment. In other words, they do so for economic reasons. That does not apply as far as the Whites are concerned. If we want to go to Kwa Mashu, Soweto or wherever it may be, we may have to get a permit, but we are not going there because we are forced to go there, to seek employment or to stay there. I do not think it is a good analogy at all.

In our opinion this measure is not going to alleviate the situation; it is not going to be of assistance. It is merely going to move the responsibility of what is an unpopular law amongst the Blacks to the homeland Governments. That is what part of the operation is about. There is no doubt about it. Anyone who has studied the situation in South Africa will know—and now I am going to use the term that the hon. the Minister does not like, but it is the term by which it is most generally known—that the old pass laws have been one of the most unpopular measures affecting Black people in South Africa. There is ample evidence of that. If one talks to Black people and asks them to name the single source of the greatest irritation in their daily life, more and more of them will tell one that it has been the operation of the pass laws and influx control. We have now given it a different name. For the hon. the Minister’s sake we shall call it a document, and identity document, a reference book or whatever one likes. However, the fact of the matter is that the Black man who still has to carry the document with him knows that the document involves him in the whole system of influx control. Therefore, I say that it is a system which is not going to assist. We do not find it attractive and still believe there is a good deal of a gap between what the hon. the Minister has told us about the acceptance of this acceptance of this system by some of the homeland leaders and their non-acceptance. They have certainly given expression to the point of view that this is not the measure which they have been led to expect.

For all these reasons we on this side of the House cannot support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that we shall oppose the Third Reading of the Bill for reasons which I have given twice already. What I want to say to the hon. the Minister is that after this Bill has been read a Third Time he will have the power to enable certain homeland Governments to issue certain documents. The acid test about the acceptability of the documents is going to be the way in which they are received and the way in which influx control is applied. The problem is not the document, just as the problem was never the reference book. The problem has never been anything that is written. The problem has been the attitude towards the person bearing the document and the way in which it is verified that he is there properly in terms of the document he carries. I think the hon. the Minister must take it upon himself and understand that there is a considerable onus on him as a new Minister in this department, with this new reference document which is now to be introduced, to see that there is a change in attitude in the way in which the documents are requested, and the way in which influx control is enforced by means of the document. Only in that way will the document acquire the sort of kudos and status which the hon. the Minister so clearly wants it to have. It will be to the advantage of every person in South Africa should that be achieved. I want to make it clear to the hon. the Minister that our attitude is not that the document itself and the form of the document is important, but that it is the attitude of the people which is important. I think the onus is on the hon. the Minister to do everything he can to improve the attitude which people have had in the past in using these documents to enforce influx control.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply as briefly as possible to the speeches. In the first place I want to discuss the matter privately with the Official Opposition. The Official Opposition is in favour of doing away with influx control entirely. That is as clear as daylight, and they said so again today. This means that Black people can move into White, Coloured and Indian areas at will and can purchase property there if it is possible for them to do so. They can use the schools in those areas and in all circumstances become a part of those communities. It will be a mixed, free, integrated community. I now wish to put the following fair question to the hon. members. The hon. member for Musgrave is the national chairman of the party and he can reply to it. Does this also mean that Whites can now move freely into Black areas and can therefore enter Soweto and the Black homelands without a permit? Will Whites be able to purchase land there, establish themselves there permanently, live there, etc.? Does it also mean that, or are the hon. members going to discriminate against the Whites? Will it mean that they will be able to purchase land in Zululand?

In time, yes.

Does it mean that they can purchase a house in Soweto, free of control, and can go and live there if they wish? I am very grateful for that assurance. In other words, in terms of that party’s policy, Soweto now becomes a mixed community and the Blacks’ land can be bought up by the capital-rich Whites, with the result that the Blacks will have no land left. I am very grateful that the hon. member gave me that reply. I shall be able to make very good use of it later. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Mooi River and his party are voting against the Third Reading of this Bill, for the reasons they mentioned. I understand that, but he and I had better agree to differ in this regard. I want to give him the assurance that I shall go out of my way to apply this Bill humanely and to have these documents drafted and made acceptable to the Black man in such a way that we shall improve human relations. My whole aim and approach in regard to this Bill—whether the Opposition believes it or not—is to improve relations between peoples and between White and Black people in South Africa. That is my sincere approach and I shall do my utmost to cause it to succeed.

In conclusion I want to refer to the standpoint of the hon. member for Musgrave that this Bill is a “pass law”. As a South African he knows, after all, as sure as I am standing here, that tomorrow or the next day the international newspapers will again be full of allegations such as “South Africa has a new set of pass laws”. Surely the issue is not an advantage for the NP and the Government, but is one of improved relations between White and Black people in our beloved South Africa, to the benefit of all. The hon. member cannot say that he has no understanding of the way in which we are going out of our way in an effort to further this matter. What will it help anyone to brand this identity document, which the Black leaders themselves have asked for and which all of them, with the exception of Chief Minister Buthelezi have agreed to, as a pass law, and then to broadcast this throughout the world? Surely that will only be to South Africa’s detriment. Why should he do so? What does it help him to do so? Does he not understand that Black and White relations in South Africa must improve? That is my point of departure. I know the Opposition. Merely by giving something a name they cause it to fail. They put their heads together for days to find a name for something to cause it to fail. But we shall adapt and adjust the Bill to the needs of as many people as possible, and I hope I shall obtain the co-operation of the homeland leaders in this regard, and that we shall succeed in improving Black and White relations in South Africa, in spite of a wilful Opposition.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—106: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; 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.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. G; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. 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.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; 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, H. J. D.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; 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—22: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In general the provisions of this Bill are directed at the creation of measures in relation to the administration, organization and control of the Bureau for State Security.

Since the establishment of the Bureau for State Security as a Government department with effect from 1 May 1969, the administration, organization and control of the department have been regulated by, inter alia, the following Acts—The Public Service Act, 1957 (Act No. 54 of 1957) to the extent to which the application thereof had not been modified by the Public Service Amendment Act, 1969 (Act No. 86 of 1969). The Security Services Special Account Act, 1969 (Act No. 81 of 1969) which provides for moneys in the special account in connection with services of a confidential nature and for that expenditure connected with the Bureau for State Security which the Prime Minister approves from time to time in the national interest. The General Law Amendment Act, 1969 (Act No. 101 of 1969), by virtue of sections 10 and 29 effected amendments in regard to the Officials Secrets Act, 1956 and to the giving of evidence in certain circumstances. In consequence of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Matters Relating to the Security of the State—the Potgieter Commission—amendments were effected to these sections in subsequent legislation, namely the Pension Laws Amendment Act, 1969 (Act No. 98 of 1969), the Medical Schemes Amendment Act, 1969 (Act No. 95 of 1969) and the Security Intelligence and State Security Council Act, 1972 (Act No. 64 of 1972), legislation which sets out the activities and functions of the Bureau of State Security in relation to security intelligence, and which is the outcome of the report by the Potgieter Commission.

As far as the Public Service Act is concerned, the State President has, in terms of the powers conferred upon him by section 6A, by Minute 1127 of 1969 delegated, with a few exceptions, all the powers, functions and duties conferred upon, entrusted to or imposed upon the Public Service Commission in relation to the organization and functions of the Bureau for State Security in terms of the relevant Act or any other statutory provision, to the Minister responsible for the Bureau for State security. Furthermore, the Bureau, with a few exceptions, has been specifically excluded from the provisions of specific sections of the Act dealing with retirement, discharge and misconduct of officials in the service of the State. In this connection, the attention of the House is drawn to the following sections of the Public Service Act—

In spite of the Acts already mentioned, which are to a lesser or greater extent applicable to the bureau, it is considered essential, for practical considerations, to consolidate matters relating to the administration, organization and control of the department in one specific Act and also to arrange matters for which there no proper provision has at present been made. In respect of matters relating to the retirement and discharge of officials of the bureau, as well as other matters relating to the bureau which are excluded from the provisions of the Public Service Act at present, it is deemed to be essential, in view of the distinctive position of the bureau, to make provision therefor in this Bill. Within the South African intelligence community, the other main partners of the bureau are the S.A. Police, the S.A. Defence Force, and to a minor extent, the Department of Foreign Affairs. Because the bureau works in very close co-operation with these services and departments, the need is also felt to adjust the organizational structure of the bureau as far as is practicable.

Because this Bill deals with the internal administrative, organizational and control measures of the bureau, the functions and duties of the department in relation to security intelligence, as embodied in the Security Intelligence and State Security Council Act, will not be affected. The provisions of the Pensions Amendment Act, the Medical Schemes Amendment Act and the Security Services Special Accounts Act will not be affected by this Bill either.

†I shall now deal with the clauses of the different chapters of this Bill.

Chapter I of the Bill contains the definitions and the applications of the Bill. As the provisions of the relevant clauses have no radical implications, I shall not elaborate on them.

Chapter II of the Bill deals mainly with the constitution and organization of the bureau. These aspects are provided for in clauses 3 to 13, and are basically in accordance with similar provisions contained in Acts such as the Public Service Act, the Police Act and the Defence Act.

In Chapter III provision is being made by means of clauses 14 to 20 for matters pertaining to discipline. These clauses, likewise, do not embody any drastic deviation from similar provisions contained in the Public Service Act, the Police Act or the Defence Act. Clause 17 provides for a member of the bureau in respect of whom an enquiry is held in terms of the provisions of this Bill, if he so elects, to be assisted or represented by any other member of the bureau. Due to the delicate nature of the department’s work it is deemed essential that members be not represented by persons outside the department in the case of any internal enquiries. As a safeguarding measure clause 15(8) provides for the right to appeal, and representation in writing to the Minister responsible for the bureau with regard to the imposition of punishment.

Chapter IV contains the provisions which are deemed expedient for the efficient command, superintendence and control of the bureau for which no other suitable statutory provisions have been made. These aspects are dealt with in clauses 21 to 49.

I shall first of all deal with clauses 21 to 35 which make provision for general arrangements in respect of members of the bureau and thereafter I shall deal with clauses 36 to 49 which contain certain amendments to the Public Service Act. The provisions contained in clauses 21 to 35 are again in accordance with similar provisions of the Public Service Act, the Police Act and the Defence Act which regulate corresponding matters within the Services and other Government Departments.

Clause 26 deals with false pretences made in respect of persons associated with the bureau. The purpose of this clause is to prevent people from taking part in activities under the pretext that such activities are under the patronage of the bureau or are in any manner associated or connected with the bureau. Activities of this nature can of course not only seriously endanger the credibility of the bureau but also the security of the State. Clause 27 is similar in scope and establishes offences in respect of persons who falsely represent themselves as members of the bureau or who persuade such members to act contrary to their duty or are accomplices to committing acts whereby lawful orders given to members or regulations may be evaded. With regard to clause 28 it is considered imperative to make provision for the Minister to prohibit access to premises occupied by the bureau. Likewise, there is no new principle involved in this clause as section 89 of the Defence Act contains similar provisions.

As is the case with the Department of Defence and the Department of Police it is envisaged that the absence of a missing member of the bureau may under certain circumstances arise from the performance of his duties in terms of this Bill. Clause 32 was inserted to make provision for such an eventuality. Clause 34 deals with the exemption of members of the bureau from training and compulsory service in the South African Police and the South African Defence Force. For the efficient functioning of the bureau it is considered essential that the bureau has sufficiently trained personnel available at all times. As the majority of the present members of the bureau have statutory obligations to the South African Defence Force and the South African Police, compliance with which will seriously jeopardise the functions and activities of the bureau, it is deemed necessary to regulate this matter by statutory means. In the event of war or a state of emergency, however, the Minister may, with due regard to the requirements of the bureau, second members for training or service in the South African Defence Force or the South African Police.

Clause 35 enables the State President to issue regulations in respect of members of the bureau. Clause 35(5) stipulates that regulations pertaining to members of the bureau need not be published in the Government Gazette but be brought to the notice of members to whom they apply in such a manner as the State President may determine. The provisions of this clause are not a deviation from standing procedures as subsection (4) of section 26 of the Public Service Act contains similar provisions. In view of the confidential nature of the functions of the bureau it is deemed necessary for this measure to be retained.

*I shall now proceed to deal with clauses 36 to 48, which all deal with amendments to the Public Service Act, and which have been necessitated by the provisions which are now contained in the consolidated Bill.

There are 13 clauses (36-48) which amend the Public Service Act. The only object is to place the bureau in the same position as the three Services in regard to the rest of the Public Service. In the nature of things, the business of the bureau is not arranged in exactly the same manner as that of one of the other three Services. As regards the three Services and the bureau vis-à-vis the Public Service, the matter is regulated by section 2(2) of the Public Service Act (clause 37) of the Bill. After amendment, it will read—

Mr. Speaker, we have listened attentively to the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech, the background which he has sketched, and the exposition which he has given of the salient features of the various clauses of the Bill. Right at the outset, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for his helpfulness during the past weeks towards the Opposition, which had to make a study of this Bill. A typed copy of the Bill was supplied to us in good time, and an official of the Bureau for State Security was also made available to us so that we could discuss the details of the Bill with him.

There are two questions which we asked ourselves, and about which we had to satisfy ourselves. The first one was: Does this Bill envisage any extension of the powers of the Bureau for State Security? The powers of the Bureau for State Security and the limitations which have been placed thereon, are the outcome of the Public Service Amendment Act of 1969, which was passed in this House without opposition. After consideration of this Bill, we are satisfied that it does not entail or envisage any extension of the powers of the bureau. Secondly, we had to ask ourselves: Is there any extension of the duties and the responsibility of this bureau as defined in the Security Intelligence and State Security Council Act of 1972, legislation which was also passed by all the parties in this House? After careful consideration, we came to the conclusion that the Bill, as it now reads, does not entail any extension of the duties and the responsibilities of the Bureau for State Security.

†It is for these reasons and because we see this as, to a large extent, a consolidating measure, that the Official Opposition will not oppose the measure. It is clear that the Bureau for State Security, since its formation in 1969, has operated as part of the Department of the Prime Minister. Its functioning is governed by a series of laws, which the hon. the Minister has mentioned, but also by an exemption created in terms of Minute 1127 of 1969, which exempted the Bureau for State Security from certain provisions of the Public Service Act, and it is under this exemption, very largely, that the Bureau for State Security has been operating since that time. So it seems to us to be appropriate that the Bureau for State Security should operate as a bureau on its own instead of operating as a part of the department of the hon. the Prime Minister.

Secondly, it seems appropriate that the bureau should not function by way of exemption from provisions of the Public Service Act, but rather in terms of a consolidated and substantive legislative measure which, in itself, could set out the codes and regulations under which it should operate. We believe that this is, in the main, what this Bill seeks to do. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, most of the clauses of this Bill are, in a sense, consolidating and taking over regulations or existing statutes. There are certain clauses, however—in particular clauses 17, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32 and 12(3)—that are all peculiar to the activities of the Bureau for State Security and do not necessarily find a place in the ordinary operation of other State departments. In certain of them—e.g. clause 31, as indicated—the limitation of the liability of the State and members of the bureau is taken over virtually verbatim from the Defence Act and the Police Act. So, whilst there are certain additional provisions, to us it appears that these provisions are necessary provisions in the light of the nature of the activities and the work that has to be undertaken by the Bureau for State Security.

Although we are not in conflict with the principle of the Bill, there are certain other features about the handling of the Bill that give us a certain measure of concern and about which we should like to pose some questions. Firstly, we find it surprising that this Bill has not been introduced into Parliament by the hon. the Prime Minister. After all, the hon. the Prime Minister is responsible. The bureau is, at the moment, part of his department. In a sense we are removing this and are setting it up as a separate bureau for which the hon. the Prime Minister has a very special, direct statutory responsibility. To us it is surprising that it has been the hon. the Minister of the Interior and not the hon. the Prime Minister who has introduced the Bill into the House.

Secondly, we are extremely disappointed that this Bill has not been referred to a Select Committee. The hon. the Minister is aware of our views—I have made them very clear to him in the weeks that have gone by. We would like to know why it was not referred to a Select Committee. Because of the detailed nature of the Bill, which sets up the whole code of behaviour of a new Bureau for State Security, we are of the opinion that it should have been referred to a Select Committee. We feel that this kind of Bill should in any case be referred to a Select Committee because it is at Select Committee level that one can examine the various provisions, provisions which cannot be examined in great detail across the floor of the House. Furthermore, this Bill deals with a bureau which, because of its very nature, has to deal with confidential activities. Once again, these are not the kind of activities that can readily be debated across the floor of the House. They are, however, matters which, I believe, could well have been discussed and considered by a Select Committee representing all parties in the House. There can be no doubt that in recent times, for reasons of which perhaps the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke is aware, there is a general public uneasiness in the field of secret funds and special missions. We believe it would have gone a long way towards seeing that the bureau itself was not identified with that public uneasiness if an all-party Select Committee had gone into this and expressed its endorsement of the Bill before it came to the House. We believe the hon. the Minister has done a disservice to the bureau by not first referring this to a Select Committee where it could have been considered in detail.

I want to refer again to the public unease which without a doubt exists at this stage. I hope that as a result of the fact that the bureau is now going to be clearly demarcated in a special service department and will not just form part of the general branches of the departmental Government, it is going to be possible, in ways in which it has not been in recent times, to sort out the twilight areas of government.

In that respect I refer to the areas of secret funds, missions and shadowy associations. I think that, unfortunately, there has been too close an integration between the work of the bureau, operating in the Department of the Prime Minister, and the work of the other departments of government in South Africa. We recognize that, in terms of the amendment to the Public Service Act and of the 1972 Act, the bureau has a very limited, defined and important function relating directly to the security of the State, and we hope that the passage of this Bill will make it possible for the hon. the Prime Minister to ensure that there will be a clear demarcation between the activities of the bureau concerned with the security of the State and the activities of the other departments of State which seem to have a whole complex network of missions. I believe that this has added to the confusion in the minds of the public as to which department is handling what and that it has been to the disadvantage both of the Bureau for State Security and the other departments which have co-operated with it.

Because this is in essence a consolidating measure, because the additional provisions are peculiar and necessary to the functioning of the bureau and because the Bill clearly separates the Bureau for State Security from the departments of State, we on these benches will not be opposing the Bill at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister for the information in connection with this matter which he made available to members of this party, and which enabled us to draw comparisons and to study this legislation.

As the hon. the Minister has already said, this Bill is for the most part concerned with the organization, administration and control of the Bureau for State Security. Whereas, in the past, these aspects were regulated by half a dozen other statutes, they are now being consolidated. We regard that as an improvement, and we shall therefore support the Second Reading. We should like to make it quite clear that as far as we were able to ascertain, there were no signs of an extension of powers or functions. At this stage, therefore, it is not a matter of being for or against the institution of such an organization as the bureau. The fact remains that there are a number of officials in the service of the bureau who perform important tasks on behalf of the State and who, as servants of the State, are entitled to the protection of their position and to proper conditions of service. Their matters have to be so regulated that they are able to do their exacting work as comfortably as possible. In our view, a large portion of the Bill is specifically aimed at achieving this object.

†We also realized that the nature and the character of the work of the bureau distinguishes it completely from that performed by other departments of the Public Service, the Defence Force and the police. The functions of the bureau must therefore necessarily differ. We find, for instance, that a high premium is placed on secrecy, and in future this aspect may be insisted upon to an even greater extent. For that reason any sort of comparison with other Acts will be completely irrelevant.

During recent months we have heard a lot about sensitive and unorthodox work which has been conducted by the Department of Information. The very nature of the work performed by the bureau demand this type of activity from its members also. There is only one or two matters I would like to raise. Firstly, I am rather surprised that the hon. the Minister did not use this opportunity to try to find a new name for the bureau. The hon. the Minister knows that it largely depends on what political views one holds. The abbreviation BOSS can be described as extremely unfortunate against the background of the South African reality. In view of the fact that we are living in a time when the names of so many departments are being changed, one would have hoped that the hon. the Minister would have looked at this aspect to see if he could not find a more neutral name for the bureau. In some other countries, bureaux of this nature have initials like Ml5, for instance, or whatever the case may be. [Interjections.] This is a more neutral name and I am saying it because I believe it would be in the interest of South Africa and in the interest of the bureau itself if one could get away from its present name.

Clauses 26 and 27 refer to imposters, and without asking the hon. the Minister to reveal some of his secrets, one would like to know whether there has been real problems in this regard or whether these are purely preventative measures.

Mr. Speaker, we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am not rising, in the first place, to participate in the debate on this Bill. I merely rise to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister of the Interior for the able and expeditious manner in which he handled this Bill. It was in fact, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition said, primarily my task to introduce this Bill. However, I asked my colleague to handle it on my behalf because, in the first place, that enabled me to devote my attention to other urgent activities. In the second place, he did so because the measure deals for the most part with Public Service matters, and he is the Minister charged with the Public Service Commission and its activities. I am aware of the fact that he has devoted a lot of time and attention to the legislation. I requested him right at the outset—because I did not want to have a dispute about the Bill and about this organization—to submit the Bill to the Opposition for cognizance and comment prior to its publication. I am pleased that the hon. members support this Bill. My colleague has definitely saved me a lot of time by his handling of the legislation in all the stages of the discussion which the legislation has passed through here and in the Other Place.

Hon. members are aware of the fact that I mentioned in my statement this morning that the head of the Bureau, Gen. Van den Bergh would be retiring from the service at the end of the month. Actually, he reached retirement age just over three and a half years ago when he turned 60. I then requested him to stay on, and he did so. However, the time has now arrived for him to retire. I had the privilege, when I was Minister of Justice, of working in close collaboration with him when he was Head of Security. He could have become Commissioner of Police if he had wanted to, but he chose instead to devote his attention to this organization. I should like to place on record today that he, as Security Chief, as policeman and as Head of the Bureau for State Security, rendered exceptional services to South Africa at all times.

Hear, hear!

I should like to express my sincere thanks to him for those services.

My thoughts go back to the early ’sixties, when I virtually spent 24 hours per day dealing with these people. In this connection, one calls to mind the days of Poqo, other subversive organizations, communists cell which had to be ferreted out, Rivonia and all the activities connected with that. It was Gen. Van den Bergh and his people in particular who were intimately involved in these matters, and who countered them in a way which redounds to the credit of the entire Police Force of South Africa. I should like to express my thanks and appreciation to this outstanding officer today for the way in which he carried out his duties as a policeman, and also for the way in which he carried out his responsibilities as Head of the Bureau for State Security.

The Bureau for State Security is, from its very nature, not an organization which one hears about every day. It is not an organization which acts in public, but I am thoroughly aware of the exceptional services which this organization is rendering to South Africa and all its peoples, White as well as non-White. In particular, I am aware of how much South Africa owes to this organization and its sister organizations, the Department of Defence and the Department of Police, for their watchfulness in regard to the security of the State. I therefore think it is fitting that on this occasion I should express a word of tribute to this officer. He is now charged with an evaluation of the confidential facets of the Department of Information, and I am convinced that he will do the same good work in that connection as he has already done in connection with the other tasks entrusted to him.

That is my reply to the question of the hon. Leader of the Opposition as to why I did not deal with the Bill personally. Quite frankly, I must admit that I did not quite follow the hon. member’s other misgivings.

The idea is that the legislation should be referred to a Select Committee.

I honestly do not know why, since it has been spelt out so clearly here, and since it is a formal matter which brings the bureau into line with the police and with the Defence Force, the matter should be referred to a Select Committee. In my humble opinion it would have been a mere waste of time. May I tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition, with all due respect, that there are other Select Committees to which I should like to invite him, but, of course, he will not accept my invitation in this connection.

I could also not understand clearly what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had in mind when he spoke about problems in connection with security operations, etc. I could not understand him properly. If he would spell this out more clearly in the other stages, I shall reply to him in that regard.

That is the only contribution I have to make to this matter. As head of this organization I thank the hon. members for their support for the Bill, and in particular, I thank my hon. colleague for his handling of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, after what the hon. the Prime Minister has said, there is not much that remains for me to say. For my part I just want to say that the mere fact that we all support the Bill in such a friendly and unanimous manner, is already conclusive proof to me that there was no need to refer it to a Select Committee. What is more: The Bureau for State Security would like the Bill to be passed during the present session, and I think we owe it to these people to give them a rationalized law for their organization during the present year.

Then, there is the question of a new name for the Bureau—a matter which the hon. member for Durban Central raised. It is true that, after the hon. the Prime Minister’s announcement this morning, confusion may possibly arise as a result of the two bureaux. In his announcement, the hon. the Prime Minister referred to a Bureau for National and International Communication. I am sure the hon. the Prime Minister will devote serious attention to this.

I shall look into it immediately.

Then there is also the question of so-called “impostors”. There have already been a few such cases. They were not very serious, but the fact remains that we were not able to handle these few cases, because we did not have legislation in this connection. After this Bill has been passed by this House and by the Other Place, we shall have the necessary control in this connection.

I should like to conclude by once again thanking the hon. members for their very pleasant co-operation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention one or two points arising out of the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister. First of all, may I say that the appointment of a Select Committee on the Bill would not have been novel. It is correct that this legislation is to an extent modelled on the Police Act and the Defence Act, but it also has got peculiar aspects of its own. Furthermore, when the Police Act and the Defence Act were first formulated, as well as in the case of every amendment to the Defence Act, there were Select Committees to ensure that matters of a confidential nature could be sorted out in a Select Committee and not across the floor of the House. I believe it would have been better and that the public would have had the reassurance of an in-depth investigation by an all-party committee before the legislation came before the House. However, I am not going to press the matter any further.

The hon. the Prime Minister made reference to Gen. Van den Bergh, who is retiring as head of the bureau. We are, because of the nature of his work, not in a position to comment on his ability in the same way in which the hon. the Prime Minister can. However, as a policeman we knew him as a man of great diligence and as a man who worked very hard. One certainly gets the impression that in recent years he has been an important factor in many of the decisions which the Government, in particular the hon. the Prime Minister, has had to take.

We wish him well on his retirement as a senior member of our civil service.

I half expected the hon. the Prime Minister to use this occasion to announce the name of his successor. There has been a statement that he is retiring and that he has already served for three years beyond retirement age. I think that kind of statement just leads to an inquisitive tension in the public. I would have hoped that the hon. the Prime Minister would have used this occasion to announce the name of his successor in the Bureau for State Security, especially in a debate where we are actually setting up the bureau as a separate bureau and not merely as an extension of one of the departments of State.

Thirdly I want to deal with another point raised by the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not know whether I was imprecise in what I said or whether the hon. the Prime Minister was being naïve. The hon. the Prime Minister must accept that as a result of the events over the past year, particularly over the last few months, relating to the Department of Information, there is confusion in the public’s mind as to where the work of the Bureau for State Security ends and where the work of other departments of State commences. This is so. Nobody is quite aware which department is operating in which field. We believe it is important for good government in South Africa that the public should know that there is a clear demarcation between the work of the Bureau for State Security and the work of other departments of State. The hon. the Prime Minister might suggest that the public is not confused, but I say that the public is very much confused as to where the functions of the bureau end and where the activities of Dr. Rhoodie and other people in the Department of Information commence. All I want to say is that I hope that the fact that the bureau will now be seen as a separate service in the same way as the Police and our Defence Force are separate services, will make it possible for the Government to convey to the public the specific functions which are undertaken by the bureau and not to let the public remain under a misapprehension that there is an interlocking of the activities of the bureau and the other departments of State.

We shall support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and I must frankly admit that his public is not my public, for I have not yet encountered the public which has such misgivings in respect of the Bureau for State Security as he says they have. They do not have those misgivings. This bureau has been operating for the past ten years already, and we have never encountered any problems or heard any stories in connection with the bureau. These are people who have quietly gone about their business, sometimes under very difficult circumstances. I do not even want to attempt to lift the veil over what they have had to do, where and how they have had to operate, and where they have had to go, etc. They have done the work which all similar organizations do in all countries, and they have done it very well. As I have said, I am not aware of any criticism which the public has, because I am sensitive to this type of criticism.

He said “confusion”, not “misgivings”.

No, there can be no confusion, for the simple reason that the bureau is subject to a defined statute and has to operate within the bounds of that defined statute. There can be no confusion, for the simple reason that that statute came into existence as a result of a particularly thorough investigation by Judge of Appeal Potgieter. Not only did it come into existence as a result of a thorough investigation by Judge of Appeal Potgieter, but hon. members will remember that Judge of Appeal Potgieter brought out two reports in connection with the bureau. I invited the Opposition of the time to designate three people to investigate the matter together with me and three of my people. We could not obtain three people from the Progressive Party, because at that stage there was only one member of the Progressive Party in the House. These three Opposition members, Sir De Villiers Graaff, Mr. Vause Raw and Adv. Mitchell, sat down around a conference table with me and the late Mr. Pelser and two other of my colleagues. We went into the matter with a fine-toothcomb and had discussions for I do not know how long, and we unanimously arrived at a certain conclusion. That was the Bureau for State Security. That is how it came into existence, and I therefore do not believe that there could be any misunderstanding about this matter.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition must please accept this from me in the spirit in which I address it to him. I am addressing it to him, not because I want to be censorious towards the end of the session, but because I am really worried. Let us forget this specific matter under discussion at the moment. Let us look at the general situation. We are making our own matters so suspect that, as a result, we are going to encounter problems abroad. We really ought to refrain from that if it is at all possible. That is my reply to the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

We have already submitted the customary Pension Laws Amendment Bill to this House this year, and as the hon. members will recall, it happened very early on at the beginning of the present session. Hon. members will therefore understand why matters on which a final decision still had to be made, could not be submitted to this House on that occasion.

There is not too much to say about the present Bill, but I nevertheless want to explain briefly what the three clauses are about.

Section 46 of the Pension Laws Amendment Act, 1943, offered members of certain provident funds who were transferred to the Public Service, the choice of remaining members of these funds or being transferred to a pension fund for Government officials.

That choice had certain legal consequences and certain statutory provisions were involved. Some of the provisions have been repealed in the meanwhile, while others might quietly have fallen away.

At the moment there is a great deal of uncertainty about the validity of the said section 46 and the matter regulated in that section may equally well be regulated by means of regulation today. Under the circumstances we feel that the relevant section may just as well be repealed.

The constitutional developments that are in progress in South West Africa, meant that the periods of service of members of the territory who were members of the Parliamentary pension scheme, had to be prematurely terminated last year. The relevant members were therefore prevented from improving their pension position by circumstances beyond their control, which we can equate to vis major or an act of God.

In clause 2 we are not trying to rectify the situation by granting them the rights that they would have had if matters had taken their normal course and if their periods of service had not been prematurely terminated.

Actually there are only five members involved in the whole matter, but it is the principle that counts. I feel that we nevertheless owe it to them to see to it that they do not suffer as a result of matters over which they have no control.

As far as clause 3 is concerned, we are just preparing the way for the payment of pension benefits to officers who, although in a temporary capacity only, nevertheless gave years of service to Parliament itself. The provisions of the clause now follow the legal provisions of section 18 of the Second Pension Laws Amendment Law, 1974, by means of which the payment of pension benefits to permanent officers of Parliament is regulated.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches also support the Second Reading of this Bill. There is one aspect, however, which I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to clarify. It concerns clause 3. In this particular clause authority is given for the payment of pension benefits to certain persons who have been in the employ of Parliament on a full-time basis, but outside the establishment as such. Provision is made for the payment of benefits, but no indication is given in connection with the period of employment such persons would have to have completed in order to qualify for such a benefit. There is also no indication of the relation this benefit would have to salary or wages earned. Therefore, I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister, if possible, to give us more information in connection with clause 3 of the Bill so that we can have a better appreciation of the steps that are taken to assist these people, their widows or their dependants.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of former colleagues and myself I should just like to express my appreciation for what the Government has done in order to accommodate former colleagues, who would otherwise have been hard hit as a result of the termination, through no action of theirs, of their period of service in this House. I feel it is only right that the steps now being taken by the Government in terms of this legislation, should in fact be implemented. On behalf of hon. members on the Government side I therefore want to grant our wholehearted support to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members wholeheartedly for their support of this Bill. In explanation of clause 3 I just want to point out that it is of course traditional for matters concerning officers of Parliament to be arranged by Parliament itself, whilst my department only makes the additional arrangements in that regard. Just like other bodies, however, the department also employs temporary officials. It was therefore felt that in some cases—as far as I know it—it was the Coloured staff in particular that were affected in this regard—due provision should be made for people who were actually employed on a partly temporary and partly full-time basis.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As in the past, this Bill only gives effect to the recommendation contained in the report of the Select Committee on Pensions. As hon. members know, the above-mentioned recommendations have already been passed by both this House and the Other Place.

Mr. Speaker, as in the case of the previous legislation, we take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

To begin with, I should like to thank you, Sir, on behalf of the council of the University of the Orange Free State, for deciding that this measure could be dealt with as a public Bill. In addition, I should like to express my appreciation to Dr. the Hon. P. G. J. Koornhof, the Minister of National Education, as well as his department, who did much to bring about an understanding of the Bill and its various nuances, and who finally gave their approval. To the Official Opposition and the other Opposition parties and their respective chief spokesmen, viz. the hon. member for Johannesburg North, the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member for Simonstown, I should like to express my appreciation for their willingness to consider solutions and for the fact that we were able to negotiate in a courteous manner. Indeed, their initial suspicion vanished when they realized that the Bill did not deal with the destination of the Currie Cup! The proposed amendments refer mainly to matters affecting the management and the underlying principles of the university.

Clause 1 provides for the creation of posts for one or more vice-rectors, and has been necessitated by the development of the university. Clauses 3, 4 and 5(a) are consequential amendments.

Clause 5(b) corrects the name of one of the bodies having representation on the council of the university.

Clauses 5(d), (e) and (f) deal with the powers of the university council. I shall return to clause 5(d).

Clauses 6 and 7 provide for the consequential and/or future extension of the senate and convocation.

Clause 8 makes it possible to appoint more than one registrar and one or more deputy registrars. This too is necessitated by the expansion of the university.

Clause 10 empowers the university to enter into agreements in respect of the training of students. Examples of such agreements are agreements with provincial authorities in connection with the training of teachers.

Clauses 2, 5(d) and 9 relate to the underlying principles of the university and consequential amendments to the so-called conscience clause, viz. section 31. Clause 2 states that the university is an Afrikaans university which has a national cultural basis and which acknowledges the sovereign authority and guidance of God. This basis is in accordance with the principle contained in section 2 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act (Act No. 32 of 1961), which reads as follows—

This provision must naturally be read together with the preamble to the Constitution.

To enshrine a university’s individual spirit and character, that is to say its underlying principles, in legislation, is in accordance with the Van Wyk de Vries Report, which reads, inter alia, as follows on page 76—

In the legislation before the House, the character and direction of the university are enshrined without the religious convictions of the staff or students being prejudiced. This approach makes the further existence of the existing conscience clause in its present form, viz. section 31, unnecessary. Indeed, this approach is in accordance with the view expressed by the hon. the Prime Minister on 28 May 1959 in his capacity as Deputy Minister of Education, Arts and Science (Senate Hansard, col. 3302 et seq.), which amounts to the fact that this is a provision which should never have been included in South African legislation since it originated in a foreign Parliament which wanted, with a clause such as this, to repeal provisions aimed at the prohibition of the admission of persons of certain races and beliefs to their universities. His standpoint was further that, as far as our university history is concerned, there never has been a provision prohibiting people from attending a university or from holding employment there as a result of their race or belief; and that the conscience clause, with its negative content, has never been necessary in South Africa … because this clause was meant just for the intolerant countries of Europe which had discriminated.

The relevant clauses in this connection are clause 5(d), which states that the council shall, inter alia, determine the policy and direction of the university and that it shall in this regard ensure that the basis of the university is maintained, and clause 9, which deals with the amendment of section 31 relating to the above matters. The negative content relating to a religious test is substituted by a positive provision that a student shall be admitted on the grounds of academic considerations, while staff shall be appointed on the ground of competence and in the best interests of the university.

Subsection (2) of this new provision confirms the spirit contained in the National Education Policy Act (Act No. 39 of 1967), and as found in our national life, viz. that religious convictions should be respected.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches associate ourselves with the provisions of the Bill as well as with the enlightening remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein West in this connection. This university, situated in the middle of the Free State, must, as a result of the nature of the environment, the area and the community which it serves, have a strong Afrikaans colour. That is unavoidable. It is also correct that it should encourage and develop that basis and in that manner attract those who are spiritually, temperamentally and culturally attuned to that sort of basis or atmosphere.

A provision laid down as a basis for the university is that in the ordinary conduct of business there should be respect for the Almighty and our religious beliefs. This is quite natural and, to tell the truth, goes without saying. What we as a party especially welcome in this Bill, is the fact that there is no exclusivity. In other words, should there be people who have other convictions or who belong to other language groups, who would very much like to associate themselves with the people in that university and with the basis and the atmosphere of the university, they have the opportunity to do so. That will create no problem. In fact, we do not believe that in such a situation problems can ever be caused.

We would very much like to wish the University of the Orange Free State the very best for the future, and in the same spirit and in the same breath I want to say: May it build upon its basis as has been provided for in this Bill. We support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, over the past few years we have had to deal with a whole series of amendment Bills on universities. These Bills have mainly been concerned with administrative matters, especially questions such as the appointment of vice-rectors or rectors and also the appointment of deputy or assistant registrars.

This particular legislation naturally includes these elements. This private legislation, as I have said, has already been in the pipeline for a number of years. There has naturally already been legislation on other universities like the Universities of Stellenbosch, Potchefstroom, Pretoria, etc. In contrast with the legislation in regard to the other universities, this legislation is aimed, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein West has said, at the amendment of the conscience clause. This is naturally not a step to be taken lightly. One would actually be wrong if one were to say that this clause was simply going to be repealed, because the provision which is to be substituted in place of that clause will in any case in practice guarantee that to an extent there will be positive protection. The hon. member referred to the negative aspect of the conscience clause, but there is also a positive aspect. I need only refer to clause 9, which relates to the proposed new section 31 of the principal Act, which deals with admission to the university. The new provisions will in practice guarantee that which the conscience clause guaranteed in a positive sense. We naturally trust that the university will apply the new admission procedure with great care.

I also want to wish the university success for the future. They have built up an individual character and they have the right to build upon that character. In conclusion I want to express the hope that in the coming years they will perhaps also start playing rugby without using the fist as quickly as we saw the other day! I wish the university everything of the best.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, I am a member of the council of the University of the Orange Free State, and I too would like to express my thanks for the manner in which this Bill has been received. Sir, I can give you the assurance that within the ranks of those concerned the news will be received with great pleasure that, after many years of trying to have embodied in the Act that which they wanted to see in it, that stage has been reached in the House tonight. We are thankful for that. I also want to convey my congratulations and gratitude to the hon. member for Bloemfontein West.

With regard to the hon. member for Durban Central, I want to say that it is enough that the whole of South Africa has accepted the name “VryStaat”.

Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words on this occasion, I want to say that it is for me as Minister of National Education a very joyous occasion, an occasion for which I am very thankful. If anybody in the country still doubted whether we had learnt to respect one anothers’ heritage and whether, when it came to important matters in the country, we could stand together, this Bill, which has been introduced at the end of this session, is visible proof that we have indeed learnt to do so. That is why it is for me a joyous occasion, upon which one can be grateful.

Secondly I would very much like to convey my hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Bloemfontein West for the fine piece of work he did over a period of months behind the scenes under difficult circumstances. Delicate negotiations had to be conducted in this regard. He did his work masterfully and I want to congratulate him and thank him for what he did.

I should like to thank the members of the Opposition parties who have taken part in this debate for the manner in which they have reacted to this Bill. There were times when we in this House debated for days on end about the conscience clause, but today this provision has been passed unanimously within minutes. A firm foundation has been laid upon which we can build, and one is very thankful for that.

Lastly I should like to convey my thanks to the chairman of the council of the university at Bloemfontein, Mr. Fanie Naudé, and everybody connected with this matter, for the initiative which they displayed. In this connection we once again saw an example of that characteristic to which the world pays its greatest tribute, viz. initiative. As a result of the initiative taken by Bloemfontein, they have become the first university to implement the relevant resolution of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission. A wonderful basis has been laid upon which other universities will in the future be able to build. I would like to convey my congratulations to the University of the OFS and say to them: God’s richest blessings on the road ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation to hon. members, and especially to the hon. the Minister, for their participation in the debate and for their positive support of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

At the outset I want to express my thanks towards hon. members of the Opposition parties who agreed that I need not repeat the whole Second Reading speech I made in the Other Place. For debating purposes I do think, however, that I owe it to them to deliver part of the speech.

As the title of the Bill before the House indicates, the proposed legislation is concerned with the profession of social work and work associated with it. Firstly, I want to make a few remarks about the background against which the Bill should be seen and, secondly, I want to give details with regard to certain matters about which there may be some misunderstanding or reservations amongst the public and possibly also amongst hon. members of the House.

The academic training of social workers has been undertaken in South Africa since the 1920s. Since a start was made with the registration of social workers in 1965, hitches have occurred from time to time with regard to the social work profession and the people who practise the profession. In due course it also became evident that there are certain shortcomings and that the registration, as provided for by the legislation of 1965, is not satisfactory in all respects. Consequently, on 31 January 1975 my predecessor announced the appointment of the Committee of Inquiry into Separate Legislation for the Social Work Profession with Dr. A. J. Auret of my department as chairman. That committee’s report was published on 7 July 1976 and was tabled last year. It is an important report and if I am not mistaken, it will serve as a reference work for this profession for a long time to come. For the record, I also want to refer to the fact that the legislation which we are tendering here today, is based on the thorough work of this committee, and I should like to pay tribute and express my thanks to the chairman and the members of the committee. The committee came to the conclusion that the vast majority of the witnesses who appeared before it support the principle of separate legislation for the profession, and for its regulation.

†By introducing the legislation which we did, we did not only endeavour to give effect to the main recommendations of the committee, but also to incorporate therein the basic principles applying in the case of legislation referring to other professions in South Africa. I do not for one moment wish to suggest that this profession has no viability, but if one considers the vast field still lying open to this profession and the probable greater demand that is likely to be made on its services in the future, I think I am not out of order when I say that it might be in need of assistance from other suitably qualified persons. Accordingly I have no hesitation in saying that I do not think that the provision we have made in regard to associated workers is at all premature. Therefore, I should like to give a few more details.

I should like to point out that, according to the definition of “associated profession”, the question of whether or not there is going to be such a profession is a matter which rests entirely with the profession itself which in terms of clause 27 is empowered to declare such a profession. If the council referred to in clause 2 does not find it necessary to do so, there is no reason on earth why it should declare any profession an associated profession.

*It is unnecessary for me to say that we are surely all convinced that the work done by people who are not only trained in social work, deserves the serious consideration of the council which is to be established. I hope and trust that this council will pay the necessary attention to such professions to see whether they should not be declared associated professions.

Then I should like to refer to the establishment of a professional council. I do not think the appointment of a professional council need occupy us for long. There are, however, a few points of difference about that. In the first place, with regard to the constitution of the council, I want to say that there is no specific provision that it can be or should be a multinational council. In this regard I should like to inform the hon. members that the provisions of the Bill will be applicable to the social workers of all population groups. Therefore, it is foreseen and accepted that the professional council will be a multinational council. The number of members of other population groups—apart from the Whites— is in any case so small that they cannot justify separate professional councils. In this regard I should like to refer hon. members to the recommendation by the Auret Committee.

In our opinion there is, however, no sufficient reason why the interests of any particular population group should be entrenched in the Bill. Although the details of the election procedure of members of the professional council still have to be worked out, I think that the entrenchment of rights is inappropriate to a free election system. In this regard I also want to give the House the assurance that the regulations will be made available for comment in good time.

I do not think that we should immediately water down a system of equal treatment, as envisaged in the Bill, with the entrenchment of the rights of some. The overall object of the Bill is to leave the regulation of the affairs of the profession in the hands of the profession, and I should not like to load the council in order to benefit one of the population groups, whether it be the Whites, the Blacks, the Coloureds or the Indians. One cannot preach equality on the one hand and entrench inequality on the other.

With regard to the professional council, in the last instance, I want to draw attention to the provisions of clause 27 which give this council the power to make rules with regard to a variety of matters. A great deal of the council’s activities will eventually be regulated accordingly. It is probably reasonable to expect that many of the other recommendations of the Auret Committee will be embodied in these rules in one form or the other. Most important, however, is that the profession is now being enabled to organize its own affairs by means of its own professional council.

By means of clause 15 the practice of the profession of social work for gain is now forbidden, unless the person who practises the profession is registered as a social worker. The social work at issue here, is the social work as defined in clause 1.

In the light of the representations received by us, we have decided to substitute clause 16 by a penalty clause which I shall move in the Committee Stage, as it already appears on the Order Paper. This provision is simple and comprehensible, and I do not want to embroider on that any further now.

For the rest we are empowering the professional council to register social workers. Moreover, in clause 17(3) a registered social worker is granted the right to use the title “social worker”.

The disciplinary and other provisions contained in the Bill follow the pattern of other legislation on professional matters and, for the most part, give effect to the recommendations of the Auret Committee. I think that these provisions are clear enough and need no further clarification at this stage. In as much as discussions about this may be necessary, I think it can conveniently be discussed in the Committee Stage.

I think that is sufficient for the moment. I want to express the hope that the provisions of this Bill are just as acceptable to hon. members as they are to me, and that I can count on their support. I also just want to say that the chief Opposition spokesmen discussed possible amendments with me, at my invitation. I should like to express my thanks towards them for their willingness to make my work easier and to streamline the passage of this essential legislation as much as possible.

This is the third of the three social welfare Bills. As the hon. the Deputy Minister said, there was no need for him to canvass the entire aspect of this Bill, because we have had the benefit of studying his introductory Second Reading speech as well as his Second Reading reply in the Other Place. Thus we are aware of his attitude on many of the points we have been canvassing and which have worried us.

There are positive aspects in this Bill, and on account of this we shall support the Bill gladly. The repeal of the National Welfare Act of 1965 has led to a situation where while the other aspects are controlled by two other Bills, the social workers will be controlled by this Bill. Social workers are trained professional people, people who have obtained a university degree in Social Science after three years’ study at most universities and four years’ at the University of Durban-Westville. This Bill will now give them professional status, as has been done with attorneys, medical practitioners and others. They will have their own council and discipline and will be able to make their own regulations. They will thus be able to control their own profession to a large extent.

Today there are, as I understand, 3 110 White, 83 Indian, 238 Coloured and 302 Black social workers. In the social work system there is, very much as in the teaching profession, a preponderance of females over males. It was of great interest to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister mention that the ratio of men to women in the social field is one to six and one to twelve in the field. Because young ladies get married and have families, it is necessary that there should be perpetuity in the profession. In that respect there should be the possibility for them to continue. This, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, arises out of the Auret Committee’s report, in respect of which 400 memoranda were received, 178 witnesses gave evidence and 400 questionnaires were answered. These are positive aspects. We welcome the statements made in the Other Place and here today by the hon. the Deputy Minister that this council will be multi-national. In other words, it will be representative of all the groups to which I have referred. I sincerely trust that in the future, when the welfare organizations take their place in the South African scene in terms of the other two Bills, we will be able to retain the Council of Social Workers on this basis as well.

We see social work today as being undertaken by a team. The social worker is not a worker who works alone; he/she is part of a team consisting of the physician, the social worker, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a minister of religion and usually an educationalist as well. All this teamwork must be seen comprehensively in order to deal with the problems which, in our modern times, do not so much concern the individual involved in the problem as the entire family. That is where these disciplines are required to operate as a team. It is therefore essential to bring in the family aspect. Because of this I think it is time that the Government give consideration to the establishment of family courts in which all the various aspects of the law with which a family is concerned, such as divorce, child welfare and adoption, can be applied. I think the hon. the Minister and the Government might think about that.

I should now like to come to the actual problems, the grey areas, of the Bill. The hon. the Minister has mentioned the question of the definition of “social worker”. However, I shall leave that matter for the Committee Stage when we can debate our proposed definition and the hon. the Minister’s. The second grey area concerns the question of associated workers. This is a new term which has crept into this form of legislation. Nobody quite knows what the term “associated workers” means. Various organizations have made representations to the hon. the Minister, to the hon. the Deputy Minister and, in fact, to all the parties. Whereas they criticized the other two Bills concerning welfare they had no criticism on this one, except for the fact that they want to know what an “associated worker” is to be.

This is a grey area in that everybody involved in social work is concerned about the question of voluntary workers. Will a voluntary worker, for instance somebody who works for a church, be able to continue to do the voluntary work and social work he is doing at present? That is where the whole definition of an “associated worker” comes in, together with the question what the position will be of a Minister of religion. A minister of religion has an essential part in the team-work involved to solve the problem to which a social worker is assigned in the first place. We must know whether, in terms of the Act, he does it for gain and whether he will be prohibited from carrying out his work. We are happy that in his reply in the Other Place, the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that he does not want to stop these voluntary workers from doing their work. However, I am afraid that unless we have clarity of what an associated worker is, there is going to be difficulty with regard to how these people are going to be able to assist as voluntary workers. In this respect I think we must also be informed as to when a person does social work and when a person does welfare work. There is a great deal of confusion amongst voluntary helpers as to whether they are doing welfare work or social work. Somewhere along the line we have to make the distinction between social work and welfare work.

The Bill makes provision for regulations to be promulgated by the council. However, there is a great deal of doubt amongst welfare organizations as to what the regulations will in fact be. There is the question of the registration of social workers and whether qualifications, particularly those obtained overseas, will be valid. By now the hon. the Deputy Minister will have become acquainted with the case—I have drawn his attention to it—of a social worker who has obtained all the highest degrees concerning social work in Britain, but who is not recognized as a social worker in South Africa. However, that can be dealt with at a later stage.

The other question we are particularly worried about, is that only a South African citizen can serve on the council. In view of the fact that African people will no longer be South Africans in terms of legislation passed by this House, it will mean that they will be excluded from serving on the council. Judging by the spirit of what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said today, namely that he will be giving them all representation on the council, I do not believe that he really intends to exclude them from serving on the council because they are not South Africans, but in fact do social work in South Africa.

I now want to refer to the accredited training institutions. In regard to accredited training institutions I think we must give consideration to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attitude to leave it to the council to make regulations. I think we need guidance in this respect as well. These institutions also need an advisory training committee. Guidance can perhaps be given by this House and the hon. the Deputy Minister in the sitting of this committee.

There is also the social worker who has a Master’s degree and is able to set up a private practice as a private practitioner. However, in this respect there should be a form of control and regulations as in the case of any other profession.