I move—

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House will support the third reading, because we agree with the principle as stated at the second reading and as reiterated at various stages in the Committee Stage that any threat to the security or the safety of South Africa must be countered. We have expressed our strong objection to measures included in this Bill, measures which we believe go far beyond the scope which we believe to be necessary. It is the old story of taking a sledge-hammer to kill a gnat, but unfortunately the wrong sort of gnat. If it had been aimed in the right direction we would have been more enthusiastic in our support. But despite our objection to those provisions, we will not oppose the Bill. [Interjections.] My hon. friend says we do so because it may damage this party, but he ought to know that we have never been wanting in loyalty to South Africa.

Order! The hon. member should not take notice of such interjections.

The Minister gave an undertaking in the Committee Stage—and I remind him of it—that if it is found that this amendment does in fact make all the offences mentioned in Section 17 of the Act punishable “in the opinion of the commission” he will introduce a further amendment to correct this. I think there is considerable doubt on that point and we will remind the Minister in due course of his undertaking that this Bill only makes the commission of an offence prejudicial to the safety of South Africa a matter to be determined in the opinion of the commission, but on all other matters the holder of a licence can defend himself on the basis of fact and not of opinion. Therefore, retaining our reservations against Clause 5, we support the Bill.

I have inquired into the matter and I was again advised that this particular matter, namely the opinion of the commission, refers only to matters prejudicial to the State. If it is found that it goes further than that, I can assure the hon. member that I will amend the Bill at the very first opportunity. I appreciate the support given to the Bill by the Opposition. I can also give them this assurance that if it does happen that it is considered that the commission has acted unjustly to a licensee, I will see that the matter is immediately rectified if it is brought to my attention.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The hon. the Minister, when this matter was discussed last night, did not exactly make the position any clearer than it is now. This is the clause which provides that if a person leaves this country—and I am particularly referring to South African born nationals—with an exit permit endorsed that he is leaving permanently, he becomes ipso facto a prohibited immigrant. The hon. the Minister when he introduced this Bill said that the effect of this clause was that such a person would lose his citizenship and that was all there was to it, and when we argued the matter in the course of the debate and we pointed out to the hon. the Minister that the effect that this would have on such persons would be to make them stateless and to affect those obligations which we had assumed under public international law, the hon. the Minister agreed and said that these persons had to be received back into the public because we were a party to the International Convention of The Hague. Why is the hon. the Minister making them prohibited immigrants? If it is his purpose, as he has stated that they should lose their citizenship when they say “I am leaving the Republic for good,” then why does he not say so? Why does he make them prohibited immigrants? Because if he makes them prohibited immigrants then surely they have to be treated as prohibited immigrants are treated, that is to say, they have to be sent out of the country as soon as possible; they have to be detained in detention barracks and then removed as soon as possible. The hon. the Minister knows and he has accepted that he cannot remove them because they are Union-born nationals, so what is the object of this clause? Clearly it is not just to deprive them of citizenship because if it was the hon. the Minister could have said so clearly. He has not said so and the matter still remains very obtuse. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us now what he has in mind, what he wants to do, so that we do not have to argue this matter backwards and forwards without having any explanation at all from him.

I think the time has arrived that we had some clarity on where the Opposition stands in this connection. It is high time that we had clarity on that. This clause deals with people who cannot get a passport. They are so bad that they cannot get one. They are saboteurs; they are people who besmirch us overseas; they are enemies of South Africa.

Not necessarily.

Of course, they are of necessity. If he is not, then he can get a passport. I want to put this question to hon. members opposite: Supposing we were dealing with such a person who could not get a passport because he was a subversive element; he cannot get a passport because the Minister and his Department regard him as an enemy of South Africa. They know that the minute he places his feet beyond the borders of this country he besmirches South Africa; he gives evidence against South Africa at UNO; he attends the Addis Ababa conference, he joins the so-called military army which wants to attack South Africa. The only way that person can leave the country is to apply for a permit to leave the country permanently. In other words, as the Minister has said, he shakes the dust of South Africa off his feet. He resigns from South Africa. When you resign from the United Party you have no right to claim the protection of that party; you let it go; you have finished with it. This man also resigns from South Africa. He says: “I do not want to have anything further to do with you; I no longer want to be a South African citizen; I do not recognize you; I want to settle permanently abroad; I am an enemy of yours. [Interjections.] Let us first solve this question before I answer the hon. member’s question. Is the hon. member in favour of such a person being deprived of his citizenship? Let the hon. member get up and reply.

Sir, am I allowed to answer the hon. member?

Yes, with pleasure.

The hon. member for Vereeniging says that this clause has to do with the enemies of South Africa, with saboteurs.

Answer the question. You need only say “yes” or “no”.

Am I entitled to answer the question?

If the hon. member replies it will be the second time he speaks on the clause.

On a point of order, as I understand the position, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) conceded the floor to my colleague.

Order! If the hon. member speaks now it will be the second time that he addresses the Committee on this clause. He can only speak on the clause three times.

Sir, on a point of elucidation, I am allowed then to speak for 10 minutes and this will be my second speech, or am I allowed to answer the question which the hon. member for Vereeniging has put to me?

Sir, I am perfectly willing, as part of my turn to speak, to allow the hon. member over there to answer my question fully.

The hon. member cannot do that in the Committee Stage.

Sir, I put a question to the hon. member …

On a point of order, if the hon. member for Durban (North) proceeds, does that mean that the hon. member for Vereeniging would have lost his first opportunity to speak?

On a point of order, have you seen me, Sir?

No.

On a point of order, Sir, I was making my first 10-minute speech. I then put a question to the hon. member for Durban (North) to which he was willing to reply. In other words I am making my first speech; he only replied to a question which I had put to him.

Order! If the hon. member sits down he loses his first chance.

Then I will not sit down.

You could simply have answered “yes” or “no”.

I really wish hon. members would allow that hon. member to reply to me. We are dealing here with people who cannot get a passport.

Where is that stated in the clause?

Why should a person leave this country with a permanent exit permit if he can get a passport. If a person wants to leave the country on business, for example, or say for instance an engineer wants to undertake work in Canada and wants to go and live there permanently, all he has to do is to apply for a permit …

May I reply now?

No, then I lose my turn. Such a person then applies for a passport. He goes to Canada and if he wishes to remain there permanently he applies for Canadian citizenship and the moment he acquires Canadian citizenship he loses his South African citizenship. There is nothing in the Bill which prevents a person from leaving the country permanently in good faith if he wants to go and work elsewhere. But there are people whom the Minister does not want to allow to leave the country and who are those people? The people whom he does not want to allow to leave the country are those people who want to go and harm us overseas; people who betray their country there. That is why the Minister does not want to give them a passport. But there are some of them, people like Bunting, for example, who say they want to leave the country permanently. They have to convince the Secretary of the Interior that they wish to leave the country permanently. They then make application, as Sobukwe did. I want to put this question to the hon. members for Durban (North) and Florida (Mr. Miller): When that type of person applies for permission to leave the country permanently, are those hon. members in favour of his retaining his South African citizenship?

Say “yes” or “no”.

No, now that hon. member looks behind him. He is more or less the rudest member in this House. Nor has he the courage to reply.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. He is perhaps the second rudest.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. Do those hon. members want people like Bunting and Sobukwe to retain their South African citizenship or do they not want it? That is the crucial question. I quite agree with the hon. member that if those people were born here we should accept them back if they are deported; but then they are not South African citizens and we can deal with them. Mr. Chairman, those hon. members do not have the courage to say whether they are willing to deprive those people of their South African citizenship. That is the point; that is the whole point. It has nothing to do with those people who leave South Africa in good faith to go and settle in another country, because the procedure they have to follow is very clear. As I have said, they simply apply for a passport and the passport is issued to them if they are decent people and they then follow the normal procedure; they assume the citizenship of another country and lose their South African citizenship; if they wish to return to South Africa they follow the normal procedure. They apply for a visa; they apply for a temporary permit and they apply for naturalization. As far as I understand the law they can become naturalized within a year because they were South African citizens previously. But we are not dealing with those people under this Bill. Here we are dealing with people who cannot get a passport and the only people who cannot get a passport are those who are enemies of this country, people like Bunting and Hodges …

What about schoolboys who have been refused passports?

The hon. member talks about schoolboys. Did they apply for permission to leave the country permanently? They were refused passports because the Minister had good reasons to refuse to issue them with passports. [Interjections.] Hon. members can make as much noise as they like. I say that if those people wish to leave the country permanently they are at liberty to do so, but then they have to convince the Minister that they want to shake the dust of South Africa off their feet. My question to those hon. members is this: When a person says he wishes to shake the dust of South Africa off his feet should he retain his South African citizenship, yes or no? What does the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) say? [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has given his explanation, but it is an over-simplification. He tells us that any man who makes application in this manner, saying that he wishes to leave the country permanently, and has been refused a passport, is necessarily a saboteur, who will go to UNO, who will be a traitor to South Africa, who will demonstrate in Trafalgar Square and who will be an enemy of the country. Sir, I want to say that that is one category but I should like to give him another category. The hon. member for Vereeniging asked last night in the second-reading debate whether we could give him one case that fell out of this class, and I should now like to give him one case. Hon. members will remember that there was at one time a University College of Fort Hare. When the University College of Fort Hare was dissolved and when in its place there was established a tribal college, there were three classes of members on the staff—those who were accepted and who were willing to be accepted as permanent members of the staff of the new college; those on the other hand who were rejected by the Minister of Bantu Education because they were unsuitable as members of the staff, but there was a third class. There was a class of men who were university lecturers and professors who did not wish to take office as lecturers and professors in what they regarded as an inferior institution. One of these is a gentleman I know, an African lecturer. Instead of accepting a post of that kind he wished to proceed overseas and pursue his studies for a doctorate in physics. He is a physicist, and if there is a class of man that we want in South Africa it is physicists. What was he to do? Could he proceed to a university in South Africa? No. We have separate universities in South Africa. The people are divided on racial lines. He could not go to Witwatersrand or Cape Town or Natal or Rhodes. What was he to do? He was anxious to proceed overseas to a British university which has a special reputation for physical research. He applied for a passport and his application was refused. What was he to do? He was prepared in order to pursue his studies, to make this declaration; he made it and he is now overseas. Is he a saboteur? Is he a traitor to South Africa? The hon. member for Vereeniging quoted a class of South Africans in respect of whom we agree with him, but there are other people as well. It depends purely and simply on what the Minister will say. It depends on what the Minister says, not on what Parliament says. The decision lies absolutely in the hands of the Minister, and for that reason we have raised this objection to Clause 8, as the hon. member for Durban (North) has done. I hope the hon. the Minister will make the concession for which we are asking.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has quoted the example of the lecturer who was anxious to continue his studies overseas. But if his sole motive was to go and continue his studies overseas I am convinced the Minister would not have refused him a passport. The hon. member knows that what he is saying here is not correct. That person wanted to go overseas in order to besmirch the policy of the Government. He refused to co-operate with this Government. The hon. member himself said that this lecturer had regarded this college or university as “an inferior institution”. Hon. members opposite regard all these Bantu colleges as tribal colleges and as inferior institutions. We, on the other hand, regard these colleges as the right place where Natives should receive their education. I am convinced that the motive of this person was not to continue with his studies; it was his specific object to besmirch the Government of the day in the countries overseas. We are not prepared to issue such a person with a passport so that he can go overseas and besmirch our country there. Why does the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) not get up and reply to the question put by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) then we shall know where we stand. You want a reply from the Minister to-day but you are not prepared to give us an honest reply. No, you are too scared to answer.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

[Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) that he must not think he will frighten me with his bellowing in this House. I am not afraid of him. He is the last person who can frighten me. He may perhaps regard himself as a wonderful member. Mr. Chairman, the time has arrived for hon. members of the Opposition to show their loyalty to the Republic of South Africa. We are tired of their wanting to protect the saboteurs. When this Government comes forward with legislation to ensure our safety they are always fighting against it. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) is so ashamed of you that he has left the Chamber.

Do you know why the hon. member for Parow has left the Chamber, Sir? He is ashamed of the behaviour of hon. members of the Opposition. The time has arrived for hon. members of the Opposition to swear their loyalty to the Republic and to prove that loyalty. This double game they are playing to-day, Sir, must become something of the past; it must stop. The electorate is getting wise to the United Party, and it is their duty to accept this clause just as it stands here. If they do that they will prove their loyalty towards the Republic of South Africa.

I do not share the touching faith of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout). I have had many occasions over the past few years when I have asked for reasons for the refusal of passports to persons who wished to leave South Africa for perfectly legitimate reasons in order to pursue their studies overseas, persons who have come with references from the most irrefutable sources, persons who have had first-class academic records and who have applied for passports and who have had those passports refused by the hon. the Minister of the Interior without any reason at all being given for the refusal. [Interjections.] If there were these obvious reasons which hon. members now say are apparent to them, perhaps they would explain to this committee why it is that on no single occasion does the Minister of the Interior give any reason for his refusal. Sir, that is as far as academic fields are concerned. I can quote one specific instance of a brilliant young journalist from this country who wrote articles, some of which might have criticized the Government, an African journalist, it so happens, who had a brilliant academic record, who wrote brilliantly for newspapers in the country and who had his articles published abroad as well and was offered one of America’s top journalistic awards, the Nieman Fellowship which is held at Harvard University. This man was not able to get a passport, and since he did not wish to pass up the opportunity of enjoying the fruits of his scholarship he applied for and obtained an exit permit. As I understand it, this Bill is retrospective. Now this man who got this exit permit at that time did so knowing that should he come back to South Africa he would of course, face imprisonment.

Why?

If the hon. member would occasionally look at legislation before he accepts it, then maybe measures would not go through this House so simply. If he will look at his Statutes, he will see that if a person who has taken an exit permit comes back to this country, he will go to prison, if he is found guilty of that offence, without the option of a fine, for a period of not less than three months and not exceeding two years. That is the existing law and that is now being changed. But such a person was prepared nevertheless to take an exit permit, knowing that if he came back he would serve a compulsory term of imprisonment. Now he cannot come back at all because he is declared a prohibited immigrant in terms of the amendment which is now being introduced. I think this is a completely arbitrary and high-handed way of dealing with citizens in South Africa who because of the narrow-mindedness of this Government are unable to go overseas and take advantage of the opportunities offered at higher schools of learning and then come back in order to resume their citizenship. Sir, that is only one aspect. I am now going to cut out the frills and get down to tin-tacks. The real issue at stake here which, of course, largely hinges on political persons …

Are you going to vote against it?

Of course I am going to vote against it. I thought I had made that quite clear but of course it takes words of one syllable to penetrate the rather obscure brain of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling). I am certainly going to vote against it not only because it affects academic persons, innocent persons, but it also affects political persons who to my mind are very often innocent as well, because these are persons who are judged by ministerial edict and not by the courts of law …

What about the Rivonia trial?

The accused in the Rivonia trial, if found guilty, will serve very heavy sentences of imprisonment, and I have nothing to say about that.

What about those who escaped?

I imagine that those who have escaped are unlikely to put their noses back in South Africa, certainly as long as this Government is in power. I am talking about persons who are deemed to be politically dangerous by this Government …

Like you.

… who are not given passports, who take exit permits, because they can no longer tolerate the conditions under which they have to live in South Africa, the bannings, the restrictions …

Why do they want to come back then?

If those people decide to come back and continue their fight against the Government—and there are ways of fighting against the Government other than with bombs … [Interjections.] Certainly, anybody is entitled to fight the Government. Does this Government want a one-party State? It is always talking about the rest of Africa.

Would you be here if we wanted a one-party State?

Anybody is entitled to fight this Government by constitutional means, and if there are people who decide that they want to come back and renew the struggle, why should they not be entitled to come back to South Africa?

What do they want to do here? [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Sir, may I ask that we at this end be permitted to hear what is going on. With the noise going on in that corner it is quite impossible to hear the speaker.

Order!

This is just another example of the arbitrary hand of this Government that goes counter to all the normal concepts of law and justice. This is aimed specifically at political people who might come back to the country, persons who might even have served terms of imprisonment in South Africa and who might be free people to-day, but for this Government, and who are now asking for exit permits because they find themselves locked up on Robben Island for the rest of their lives.

You mean Sobukwe?

Yes, I mean Sobukwe. Let me make that quite clear.

Should he be allowed to come back?

I think if Sobukwe has applied for an exit permit, as the hon. the Minister tells us he has—and I gather that the result of this amendment is the reason why all this is being held up, and if he is given an exit permit then it should be under conditions clearly understood, and if he wishes to resume his citizenship he should be entitled to do so because he has committed no crime since his detention. Under the normal concepts of justice, when a person has served his term of imprisonment for a crime which he committed, that person goes free until he commits a crime again. That has not happened in the case of Sobukwe; he has committed no crime since his term expired. Sir, I was against this section in the General Law Amendment Act which allowed the imprisonment, without trial, of people for life who have served their sentences. I am against this clause for the same basic sort of reason. It is done without trial; it is done by arbitrary ministerial edict and it goes quite contrary to the Rule of Law, and I shall most decidedly vote against it.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is very dissatisfied because the Government refuses to give the reasons why a passport is refused. That being the case I take it that the hon. member has already been dissatisfied about this for many years because no Government in this country has ever yet given the reasons for refusing to issue anybody with a passport. In that regard the action of this Government does not deviate one iota from that of any previous Government and I can also assure the hon. member that it is not the intention of this Government to deviate from it in future.

The question of the issue of a passport is a question that has to be treated on its merits. Every application for a passport is treated on its merits. If a passport is refused it is refused not simply because the applicant is opposed to the Government’s policy. I wish to emphasize this that an application for a passport is not refused simply because the applicant is opposed to Government policy. There are other reasons as well why passports are refused. Very often financial considerations come into play. Passports are refused because of considerations other than purely political considerations. To expect the Government to give reasons why a passport has been refused is, I think, a very rash request. I wonder whether the hon. the Opposition has ever thought what the consequences could be to the person concerned if the Government were to give the reasons why a passport had been refused to him. If it is a case where a passport was refused because of financial considerations, I think the hon. Opposition will realize what tremendous harm could be done to such a person if the reason for the refusal were to be made known to the world.

I was particularly struck by the argument that those people who had left the country on permanent exit permits might become stateless. As far as I am concerned it gives me a very interesting insight into the thoughts of the United Party as to the class of person for whom they are actually pleading and about whom they are actually concerned. Who is the class of person who will return stateless to South Africa? If somebody to whom a passport has been refused for sound reasons—not only for political reasons, but for sound reasons—convinces the Secretary for the Interior that he wishes to leave the country for good, a permanent exit permit is issued to him. When that exit permit is issued to him and he leaves the Republic of South Africa he automatically loses his South African citizenship the moment he leaves. That person now arrives overseas and he causes such a lot of trouble there that that country sends him back. That, Sir, is the type of person for whom the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) and hon. members of the United Party plead. They are pleading for the person who cannot even find a home in the big wide world; the person with whom the big wide world does not want to be saddled and want to send them back. That is the type of person for whom the United Party is pleading to-day, Sir. When that person returns, that person with whom the big wide world does not want anything to do, then South Africa has to take him back in terms of The Hague Convention. It is not necessary to make provision for that in this Bill because we are subscribers to The Hague Convention; that is why we have to carry out its terms. When that person arrives in South Africa he is subject to the penalties which were laid down in the law in 1955 and even prior to that, namely, he is subject to a penalty which varies between three months to two years without the option of a fine. That has been the law since 1955. When he is thrown back to South Africa the position is that he can apply for a permit to live here temporarily. If he wants to go beyond that he can apply for a permit to reside here permanently. After that he may apply for naturalization and that is granted in terms of Section 10 (8) of the Citizenship Act. In that way such a person can again find a home. I want to draw the attention of the House to the class of person for whom the United Party is pleading. With this plea of theirs they are trying to wreck the arrangement which is made here for well-ordered citizenship, something of which every nation ought to be proud.

The hon. the Minister spoke about the person who has gone to any of the Western countries. He takes it for granted he went to a Western country and that he becomes a communist or something like that; he stirs up trouble there and that country deports him. But what about the South African who has gone to, say, Kenya or Ghana and because he stands up for South Africa or the White man and is deported from there? Now we will not accept him back here. The hon. Minister says we are trying to protect a certain type of person, such as a saboteur who has left the country for good. But could that person not be a South African who has gone to one of those countries which are hostile to us; and realizing how hostile they are and realizing how wrong he was about his attitude towards his country wants to return to the country of his birth? What about him? The hon. the Deputy Minister says we are protecting the man who goes to a Western country from which he is deported because of his bad behaviour. He takes it for granted that he behaved badly there because he was a communist or something like that and is deported from that Western country. But he might be just the reverse. He might be kicked out of one of the Black states because he stands up for the rights of South Africa or the White man generally. Does that justify the hon. the Minister to treat him like a prohibited immigrant? It might well be that once he sees such a Black state in operation that he was wrong about South Africa and now wants to return.

I am quite sure that the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) has not read the Bill properly, otherwise he would not have had that problem. Anybody who goes to Kenya or Ghana, for example, normally applies for a passport. It is issued to him and he goes there. And when he wishes to return he applies there in the normal way for permission to come here. We issue him with a visa, he returns and lives here as he did previously. Surely that was stated very clearly by the Minister when he introduced the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I really got to my feet to say something about a wrong impression created by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and to a lesser extent by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). They created the impression that the Government refused passports to its political opponents and then compelled those people to leave the country. That was how they put it. The Leader of the Progressive Party in South Africa, Dr. Jan Steytler, went overseas recently. He is a political opponent of this Government if there is anybody who can be described as a political opponent of the Government. Did we refuse to issue him with a passport? No, we allowed him to go overseas and to do what he wanted to do and he is back in South Africa to-day. We did not refuse to issue him with a passport. There are other people whom we can quote as examples. There is Albert Luthuli. When the Nobel prize was awarded to him did we refuse to issue him with one? I shall give other examples. There is Stanley Uys. He was issued with a passport and he went overseas, and what did he do there? In Ghana he disavowed his allegiance to South Africa in favour of Nkrumah. We gave Sow-den a passport and he went to America where he attended UNO and accused the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs from the gallery of telling an untruth and appealed to the people not to listen to him. My question to the hon. member for Houghton and Kensington is this: Should we issue passports to people to go and do what Stanley Uys did in Ghana? Must we do that? Is such behaviour worthy of South Africa? Do hon. members regard that as normal political opposition? Do they regard that as political opposition to the Government of South Africa? I should like the hon. member for Houghton to reply to that question, because they say we are forcing the political opponents of this Government to leave the country permanently. I have given a few examples and there are many more that I can give.

I should be pleased if they would stop once and for all creating the impression in the outside world, as the hon. member for Houghton has done, that we want a one-party State; that we want to do away with all opposition. Having this one example in mind I should like her to tell us how she comes to that conclusion and also what she thinks of the actions of those people who leave the country and do what they have done.

Both the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) are wrong in their approach to this particular clause. If the hon. member for Vereeniging remembers the debate last night, Sir, he will know that the main issue here was the question of placing difficulties in the way of these people returning. In doing that we were speaking with the backing of that side of the House as well. I do not know whether this hon. Deputy Minister is in difficulty because he is trying, on the one hand, to satisfy the political demands of certain members on his side of the House and, on the other hand, trying to satisfy the Minister of Immigration. Obviously hon. members did not listen last night so I shall again have to read what the hon. the Minister of Immigration said last year. The hon. the Deputy Minister will remember that I quoted the Minister of Immigration. I said there was obviously a difference of opinion and that that was becoming more marked. This was what the hon. the Minister of Immigration said—

Are they treated as immigrants.

That is the point at issue, Sir. We have also made it quite clear to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we are not voting against this clause. All we are asking the hon. the Deputy Minister is, with the power which the Minister of the Interior has to meet these cases, and as he said last night, each case will be treated on its merits, to give these people the utmost consideration if they wish to return to South Africa. [Interjections.] We are not starting an argument with the hon. member for Vereeniging, Sir, about whether we are supporting Sobukwe or anybody else. That is not the issue at all. The whole issue, based on the statement by the hon. the Minister of Immigration, is that we and he believe that the need for immigrants in this country is so great that these people should be encouraged to come back. That is the position. We do not want any obstruction put in their way should they wish to come back. Because we believe, like the Minister of Immigration, that they will make good citizens, that they will be better South Africans when they return and not worse. I think that crystallizes the issue.

The hon. member who has just spoken has been under a totally wrong impression ever since last night. He argues as though those people who left South Africa and emigrated to Australia, for instance, went there on a permit. He argues as if that is the position but that is by far not the position. He must understand that once and for all. It was explained to him last night and I want to explain it to him once again. Those people went to Australia, or wherever it might have been, on a passport. The people we are discussing here are those who left on a permit, such as Bloomberg, for example, who left the country and said he did not want to return. They are really the saboteurs, the people who, for some personal reason or other leave the country and do not want to return; those people who want to leave the country for political reasons. Those are really the political saboteurs. Those are the people whom the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) want to protect. The Opposition cannot get away from the question posed by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) by saying, as the previous speaker did, that they are people who left the country on a permit to go and live elsewhere also and who now want to return. The people under discussion are those who left because they were political saboteurs. They will now be dealt with in terms of this clause.

I want to return to what the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has said. He talks as though the only effect of this clause will be that a person must be redeported if he is a prohibited immigrant. Does the hon. member not know that many other consequences can flow from the fact that you are a prohibited immigrant; you do not of necessity have to be re-deported. The hon. member for Durban (North) argues that because you cannot again deport him, because you have to accept him back, this entire clause is valueless. That is an incorrect statement. If you are a prohibited immigrant many other consequences can flow from that. Action can be taken against you, you may be sent to gaol; you are a criminal. Or you can take steps right from the beginning to arrange your affairs in South Africa. You can again apply and say: “I am a prohibited immigrant but for this reason I want to have my position in South Africa regulated”. The person to whom the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) has referred, the person who has gone to Ghana and who wishes to return, is somebody who can immediately come and say: “I want my position regulated.” He can do so in terms of the law as it stands at the moment. It is not necessary for him to be redeported or even to go to gaol. I hope the position is now clear.

Nothing that the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has said has made the clause any clearer. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will extend us the same courtesy which he says he extends to applicants for passports, namely to treat their applications on their merits. The hon. the Deputy Minister has not treated our argument on its merits at all. The hon. the Deputy Minister joined in the invective in which the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) indulged …

Give us the merits of your case and I shall consider them.

… and attributing all sorts of motives to this House, motives which are not warranted and which are not worthy of the hon. the Deputy Minister to associate himself with in the position that he holds. Now he says “give us the merits of the case”. Sir, either I do not speak English very well or the hon. the Deputy Minister does not understand English very well or neither the Deputy Minister or I have any idea what this Bill is about. Nobody on this side of the House is pleading for any one at all in respect of this clause. This is not our approach to this clause. We were party to a part of the Citizenship Act by which a man can renounce his South African citizenship if he wishes to. We are not disturbed about the person who leaves South Africa permanently and says he does not want to come back losing his citizenship. That is not what disturbs us at all. The point that was raised last night, the point that was raised this afternoon, the point that has not been answered either last night or this afternoon is this. First of all, we know the Government can refuse to issue a passport to a citizen. We know this is a universal truth in all the Western countries of the world. We know the Government can refuse a passport. What is a passport? A passport is merely an identifying document which entitles the holder to certain facilities which his Government provides in the countries in which he travels. That is all it is. The purport of this clause is not whether or not the man should have a passport. This refers to the man who leaves the country with an endorsed exit permit … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, are we not entitled to hear the merits of the case as asked for by the Deputy Minister.

Order!

As I have said, we do not mind a man losing his citizenship in those circumstances. That is quite understandable; that is reasonable. But why does the hon. the Deputy Minister make him a prohibited person? Is it necessary to make him a prohibited person? Why is that necessary? If he does come back, either because he is deported here or because he wants to come back or because he becomes destitute in some other country, when he arrives here he arrives with the status, not of a South African born national, but with the status of a prohibited immigrant. And a prohibited immigrant, as far as I am aware, when he arrives here has to be put into custody. I know they are going to be charged with leaving the Republic without a valid document because when they return they are deemed to have done so. We know all that; that is nearly ten years old. What we are concerned about is this: Why is the hon. the Deputy Minister changing the law now? Why does he not say they will lose their citizenship? That was the question which we put last night; that was the question put this afternoon; that is the question I now put again, and that is all that we raise in this matter. What is the hon. Deputy Minister after? Will he please explain to us? Will he tell us why he has done this?

If those people say they want to leave the country permanently, why, in Heaven’s name, do they want to be South African citizens?

Let me try just once again: If they leave the country permanently, I am asked, why should they want to be South African citizens? I am not concerned with whether they want to be or whether they will be; what I am concerned about is what will their status be if they return. Let me ask the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) whether he can explain, if the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot, why does he not just provide in this clause that they will lose their citizenship. Then we will have no difficulty, because we will know exactly what it means; we will know what its purpose is and we will know what attitude to adopt. Sir, we are not opposed to the clause for the reasons that I have given. [Interjections.] This is what happens, Sir, when you only listen to a part of an argument. We are concerned with just this one aspect. Surely it is not too much to ask of the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. gentleman sitting on my left (Mr. Froneman) does not understand this and the hon. member for Vereeniging does not pretend to understand. But surely the hon. the Deputy Minister can do us the courtesy of giving us an answer to that one simple question with the aid of the gentleman behind him.

It is interesting to note that all the hullabaloo we have had from the United Party has now actually dwindled down to this one limited question: What is the position of the prohibited person? Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat surprised at the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) who is a legally trained person and who should know this like most people know the alphabet, namely, that: If you do not have this provision in the regulations governing residence, regulations in connection with entering and leaving a country, the necessity to have a passport falls away entirely. If you were to delete this question of prohibited persons from the legislation the necessity to have a passport in this country or in any other country falls away, because in that case any person can freely enter and leave a country. There will be no limitation; no penalties will attach to him; there will be no way in which the State can clamp down on him. The only way in which it can be done is to describe him specifically as a prohibited person. That is the logical consequence of abusing a passport. If this were to be deleted we might just as well do away with the entire system of passports.

The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) was not present last night and he asked a question to-day to which I should like to react.

I was here.

Probably not when we discussed this matter otherwise I do not know why the hon. member has raised it again. The hon. member for Green Point wanted to know what was to happen in the case of South Africans who had gone to Kenya and Ghana, clashed there with the policies of those countries, and had been driven out. He wants to know what there position will be when they return to South Africa. The first question is whether those people went there under an ordinary passport, which, I take it, was the position in 99 per cent cases.

What about the others?

The percentage that went on a permanent exist permit will be negligible. The majority of those people, therefore, who went to Ghana or wherever it might have been, on a passport are free to return to South Africa any day; they will not be subject to any penalties; there is no limitation on them; there is no difficulty. It is really not necessary for the hon. member to be worried about them therefore. Just as little is it necessary for hon. members to be worried about those South Africans who have emigrated to Australia or New Zealand, who have regretted it after a year or so and want to return. The majority of those people, as a matter of fact I think practically most of them, went there on ordinary passports and permits to leave the country, not on permanent exit permits. They went on ordinary passports which enable them to return, just as the immigrants in this country do in respect of the countries from which they have come. The Dutch immigrants, to give on example, who are in possession of a Dutch passport, return there year in and year out; they visit their families there, they return and they work here until such time as they eventually acquire South African citizenship. That is also the case in respect of these South Africans who are in Australia or New Zealand at the moment. They are not affected by this provision in the least. I, therefore think, Mr. Chairman, that the opposition which has been raised so far is really groundless.

I intend to register my opposition to this clause. I voted against the 1955 Act which tightened up considerably the regulations as far as passports were concerned and I certainly would have voted against the second reading of this Bill had I been here yesterday. But I should like to register my disapproval at least to this particular clause for reasons I have already given. I really got up to correct one or two incorrect statements made by the very voluble member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). He kept on referring to Mr. Bloomberg as one of the persons who left this country as he thought, I gathered, on an exit permit and therefore should not be allowed to return and if he did return would be declared a prohibited immigrant and so on. But he is quite wrong, as he often is, in the information he gives to this House. He would need to amend this amendment considerably to prevent Mr. Bloomberg from returning to this country since Mr. Bloomberg, in fact, left on a valid passport. I want to go a little further, Sir. I think the hon. member referred in passing to Mr. Bloomberg as one of the saboteurs. To the best of my knowledge the only real grudge that the Government has against Mr. Bloomberg is that he helped to expose the whole Broederbond business. I wanted to correct that incorrect statement about Mr. Bloomberg, who is a reputable journalist and who left on a valid passport and therefore, I say, had no connection with saboteurs, etc.

The other point I wanted to make is that one of the hon. members opposite asked me whether I would agree that certain persons should go oversea sand “beswadder” South Africa’s name abroad, and he mentioned a few specific cases. Obviously I cannot take responsibility for individuals who leave this country. I would say that as a general rule a South African person should be entitled to a passport as he would be in any other country of the world. Passports in other countries are certainly not refused on the grounds on which people are refused passports in South Africa.

How do you know?

I know because of the practice followed. People get passports in other countries certainly not as a matter of right but as a privilege. That is the same in this country here. But I know of no other country, other than totalitarian countries, where passports are refused for as meagre reasons as in the case of South Africa.

How do you know what the reasons are?

I want to say further that people who go overseas, as opponents of the Government, like Dr. Steytler for instance, do far more good to South Africa than Government spokesmen who go overseas, and who perhaps should be stopped from going if the Government wants to stop the damage done to South Africa. Such persons who go overseas and demonstrate to the outside world that there are people, other than people who go in for unconstitutional means of fighting the Government—that there are other people who are strongly opposed to the Government and deplore the Government’s policy of racial discrimination, do great good for South Africa and nobody could have done better for this country than a person like Dr. Steytler.

I would ask the hon. member for Houghton to give us a word other than “reputable” to describe a respected lady like herself, seeing that she has now finally degraded that word in the English language by linking it to the fugitive journalist Bloomberg.

But to come to the United Party, I think that party should do some soul-searching. One listened with surprise to their arguments against this clause. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) advances the argument against this clause that if an immigrant leaves South Africa permanently with the intention of settling in another country, that will hinder his return, whilst our Minister of Immigration said that that is not our intention. I think the hon. member for Umlazi inferred from the careful avoidance of his statement by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) that he had the cat by the tail, or really did not even have a tail in his hand, viz. that the category of persons to whom he refers leaves the country in the ordinary way with a passport. Then the hon. member for Durban (North) quickly ran away from the argument of the hon. member for Umlazi and said: No, but we misunderstand their argument; their argument is actually that in terms of other legal provisions it is clearly correct that anyone who commits an act which is in conflict with his South African citizenship loses that citizenship. Therefore those who leave merely with an exit permit, thereby indicating that they want to abandon their South African citizenship, will lose it. And what the hon. member now wants to know is why this clause now goes still further, and in addition declares such a man to be a prohibited immigrant. Then the hon. member kicked this argument about a little, and possibly he looked into the eyes of his hon. Whip who now sits so suspiciously near to him, and then he rectified his argument and said: Actually the argument is not that this man now loses his South African citizenship and that an additional penalty is now being added, but the fault with this clause is really this: Why does the Minister not provide expressly in the clause that the person who leaves South Africa with a final exit permit loses his South African citizenship? If the hon. the Minister would only say in his explanation, or write it into the Bill, that someone who leaves with such a permit loses his South African citizenship, they would be satisfied. Sir, there are now three United Party angels who are trying to dance on the point of a needle. They do not have any real objection. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), an intelligent man, has advanced the only argument which may perhaps save the United Party from their predicament. He said: Here and there we find that some of these people who leave South Africa do so permanently, as in the case of a Coloured who wants to further his education abroad, who in fact is not a political enemy and who will be more heavily punished by the effect of this clause than he considers to be reasonable. But that is the closest that party could get to an argument.

Why did those hon. members try to raise an argument against this clause? As the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has said, the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) finds this provision as bitter as gall, and the members of the United Party find it as bitter as aloes that this Government is effecting measures whereby enemies of South Africa who have shaken the dust of this country from their feet will not be able to re-enter the country when they want to do so except in an illegal manner, and who on their reentry will be dealt with as illegal entrants.

In conclusion I want to ask this: Can any patriot say that any man who of his own free will says, “I leave this evil land and I never want to return to it”, should be allowed to freely re-enter it? Can anyone ever grant such a person who has deserted the country the right to return to it without being guilty of a lack of patriotism? No, nobody can advocate that, and that is why the Whip of the United Party has been circulating amongst the speakers on his side in order to silence them and to minimize the harm done as far as possible.

The Opposition must not think that they will so easily avoid this issue by remaining silent. I have the deepest sympathy for the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). He has had to keep them quiet. Even he could no longer bear to see them acting so stupidly.

But I want to return to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). She delivered an impassioned plea here for Sobukwe. She said that if Sobukwe left the country, he should be allowed to return. But according to the information that appeared in the newspaper, Sobukwe wrote to the Minister of Justice and said that he and his wife and children wanted to leave this country permanently and never wanted to return.

His children might want to return.

The hon. member spoke about Sobukwe. I want to know from the hon. member what her attitude is. I understand that Sobukwe is an extremely intelligent man, a man with a strong personality. He gave the Minister his word of honour and said: I want to leave South Africa with my wife and children and I will never return again. Now the hon. member says that he should be given the opportunity to return. I want to know this from the hon. member for Houghton. I hope that she has the courage to answer this question: We have the evidence from Sobukwe that he never wants to return. Did Sobukwe give the hon. member any other information? Where does she get that information from? Did Sobukwe give her other information?

No.

Without his having been asked to do so, of his own volition, of his own free will and on his own initiative he said that he never wanted to return.

That is correct.

Then why is the hon. member making such a fuss? In case he does return! And he will return in order to continue his acts of sabotage, his incitement, his agitation and his efforts to bring about the fall of this Government by force. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she believes Sobukwe when he says that he wants to leave permanently? Does she think that saboteurs who say they want to leave the country permanently will never want to return? No, they will leave in order to escape punishment here. If they want to leave and really do want to leave permanently, let them do so because then they can do nobody any harm. But they want to attend the sabotage schools at Addis Ababa, the sabotage schools in Egypt and the sabotage schools behind the Iron Curtain. They want to return to this country and the hon. member wants to allow them to go unpunished. She takes it upon herself to say that Sobukwe is not speaking the truth. He is committing perjury when he says that he never wants to return to the country again. She is the witness who tells us that Sobukwe will return. Sir, this proves precisely how necessary this clause is. Sobukwe will want to return again but we will not allow him to and if he does return to this country he will be imprisoned again. But that is the attitude adopted by the hon. member. Where is the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) now? I have something to say to him but he is not here. Let me then put the question to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw): The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), a respected member of the Opposition, has mentioned the case of a lecturer at Fort Hare who has left the country permanently; he has said that he wanted to leave the country permanently and that he never wants to return. Nobody asked him to do so. He said this on his own initiative because he no longer liked South Africa. He no longer liked us. He wanted nothing to do with South Africa; that was why he said that he wanted to leave permanently. We did not ask him to do so. He said that he wanted to do so. My question to the hon. member for Durban (Point) is this: Does he think that such a man should retain his South African citizenship? I want to put a very easy question to the hon. member: Is he going to vote against this clause? No reply. The hon. member for Houghton said that she was going to vote against this clause because it was unjust. I want to make a prediction. The hon. member for Durban (Point), all 300 lbs. of him, is going to vote for this clause; he is going to put all his weight behind this clause, literally and figuratively. This clause is going to break the sound barrier with his weight behind it. I see that the hon. member for Durban (North) has returned. He wanted to answer a question that I put to him but it appeared that this would be in conflict with the rules of the House. The hon. member for Durban (North) then had the opportunity for ten minutes to reply to my question but he still did not reply to it. I want to ask him whether he is going to answer my question now or whether his Whip will prevent his doing so? I am going to ask the question again and I am going to ask it in pursuance of what the hon. member for Kensington has said. The question is this: Does the hon. member for Durban (North) think that the Bantu lecturer at Fort Hare who decided to do a thesis at Oxford or some other place and who refused ever to return to South Africa should retain his South African citizenship?

May I reply to that?

The hon. member now wants to stand and reply to me and rob me of my turn to speak, but I am not so easily robbed of my turn to speak. Let him answer this easy question: Is he going to vote for this clause? We are going to vote just now and I am sure that he has known for a long time what he is going to do. If he is going to vote for the clause I would like to know why all this fuss is being made. I want to say something else. They decided originally to vote against this clause because they had not read it properly. Most of them, like the hon. member for Durban (North), wanted to vote against this clause because they were thinking along precisely the same lines as the hon. member for Houghton was thinking. But when the matter was discussed and they realized what they were going to vote against and what they were going to let themselves in for, they held a council of war under the leadership of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). He said: “In heaven’s name, keep our people quiet; we are not going to vote against the clause”. They realized that they were going to fall into a trap. This is the most pitiful, the most tragic thing that I have ever experienced. It is no wonder that the only pleasure in life left to that party is to vent their spleen upon an innocent gentleman like the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell).

I would like to put on record my denial of what I can only describe as the extreme—I want to remain parliamentary and do not want to use the word “despicable”—attack made by the hon. member, the despicable allegation made by the hon. member for Vereeniging.

What attack did I make?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that expression.

I withdraw the word “despicable”, and unfortunately I cannot think of a better substitute. Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. member, but as far as I understood him he said that I raised this matter because I had private information that in fact a man who had applied for an exit permit was intending to return to this country. Is that not what the hon. member said?

I asked the hon. member whether she had any information to the effect that he would come back.

I told the hon. member that I had no such information.

Then why so perturbed?

What perturbed me was the inference, Mr. Chairman. I read much more in the hon. member’s allegation than what he now tells me he meant. I simply repeat that obviously I have no secret information, smuggled to me, of the intention of this man.

Why are you so allergic then?

I am allergic to any regulation, any law, any amendment which gives Ministers further powers without recourse to the courts of law, which further increase the arbitrary powers of Ministers. That is why I am so allergic, allergic I certainly am to any legislation of this kind and for that reason I shall certainly vote against this clause this goes much further than the 1955 legislation against which a strong stand was taken by the then Opposition. This gives the Minister even greater powers, and therefore I shall have to vote against it.

I would like to reply to the hon. member for Houghton. She becomes very allergic when we discuss those persons about whom she apparently has some information. In every debate however she tells us that she has this or that information. Amongst other things, some weeks ago she told us that she had in her possession certain affidavits. We cannot know when she has information and when not.

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the clause.

I want to discuss another point under this clause. The hon. member for Houghton said that possession of a passport was a privilege. That is so. She also mentioned Dr. Steytler, and I want to reply to her.

Order! This clause has nothing to do with passports and Dr. Steytler.

Then I want to say that I am not at all sure that we should not give people like Dr. Steytler a permit instead of a passport because I think that people like Dr. Steytler who go overseas to solicit support in order to put their party into power and who do not want to depend upon the people in their own country to put them into power, must be dealt with in some other way. We have another name for that sort of action. He is a Quisling if he goes abroad in order to seek assistance to enable him to put his party into power.

On a point of order, may the hon. member suggest that Dr. Steytler is a Quisling?

The hon. member may proceed.

Such persons ought only to be issued with permits and not with passports. I want the hon. member for Houghton to know that all of us do not have her tremendous admiration for Dr. Steytler.

This is a surprising exhibition we have had here this afternoon. It must be quite clear to everybody who knows what is happening here that the Government is in trouble. They have got no Order Paper to go on with.

Order! The hon. member must deal with the clause under discussion

Yes, Sir, after the speech by the hon. member for Heilbron and the speech by the hon. member for Vereeniging, it is quite clear that any matter must be raised in order to keep the debate going.

Order! The hon. member is reflecting on the Chair now. He must withdraw that.

I withdraw any allegation against the Chair, Sir, but the Chair itself ordered those hon. members to come back to the clause.

On a point of order, I was never interrupted by the Chairman when I was speaking.

The other members certainly were called to order by the Chair. But let us deal with the hon. member for Vereeniging. He was not making a speech but was asking the United Party whether they were going to vote for the clause or not. If the hon. member had been listening he would know that it was made quite clear that we are going to vote for the clause. The United Party’s attitude has been quite clear all along. We wanted certain information from the hon. Minister, but after listening to speeches from hon. members opposite, the United Party naturally reacted. All this talk from the other side about Bloomberg and Stanley Uys and Jan Steytler, what has that got to do with the Bill? Mr. Bloomberg left the country legally. His big crime is that he exposed the Nationalist Party and the Broederbond.

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

Sir, I will not go back to Mr. Bloomberg, but to Mr. Stanley Uys. The suggestion is that these journalists who do not support the Government should leave the country and not be allowed to return. This is a strange attitude from the Nationalist Party when one bears in mind their record. What happened to a confessed enemy of the country, who broadcast for the enemy, during the war, Mr. Holm? What happened to him? Not only was he welcomed back to this country, but he was given a job. It is a strange attitude now in regard to this clause. Do not let them waste any further time on this clause trying to make a little bit of propaganda out of it. The United Party are supporting this clause. We also do not want enemies of the country to be allowed to return, but the names mentioned to-day of Dr. Steytler, Bloomberg, Stanley Uys—They are not enemies of the country, and this Bill is not designed to keep them out. I say that this is a waste of time by the Government Whips in order to get time for themselves.

Clause put.

Mr. Chairman, instead of demanding a division, I ask that the opposition of myself and my party to this clause be recorded.

Clause 8 put and agreed to (Mrs. Suzman dissenting).

On Clause 9,

I want to move the following amendment—

The object of this amendment is to deal with those people who became aliens with the passing of the Commonwealth Relations Act in 1962. We have been over this position and the debates have been recorded in Hansard. We discussed it with the hon. Minister of the Interior during last session, and I think the position is understood by all. The purpose of this clause as set out here is to put beyond doubt what the position of these people is. I concede that it does that, it puts beyond all doubt where they stand now. But we would like to put this particular point: This clause will take further rights away from them without any warning. When these people were given time, when they became aliens, to register their intention to reside permanently in the Republic, they did not all take advantage of that opportunity. I believe in many cases they were confused about the issue. But here is a case where retrospectively to April last year, another right is being taken away from these people and that is the period of qualification for citizenship which they have already accumulated to their credit. Because as from the passing of this clause, those people will have to qualify anew for South African citizenship, irrespective of the fact that they might have had four years residence during the last eight years, or in many cases considerably more. In his speech last year, the hon. Minister of the Interior said that he wanted to make concessions to these people and that he wanted to meet them. He has done that to a certain extent by extending the period and legalizing that in this Bill—to 1 April 1963. But we believe that that is not quite enough, because we are of the opinion that these people should have a warning that if they do not now do it, they will lose their qualifying period as well. They have had no notice of that and this is the first notice they have had. We believe that it will not do any harm at all to extend that period to 30 June, or in other words, before 1 July of this year. That will give those who really intend to register, the opportunity as from now to 30 June, to take warning that the closing down is coming and they have adequate time to register between now and 1 July this year. I believe that is a concession the hon. Minister can make without causing any upsets. It does give those people who live in this country and who have a stake here and for whom the Minister of Immigration does not have to find employment, a further chance to become citizens. They are all working here, and they have got into our way of life, and that makes them good citizens. I believe if the Minister would accept this amendment he would not only be making a gesture to those people, but he would gain many useful South Africans.

I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment. In this clause a very great concession is being made to these 2,000 dilatory people. It is not true to say that they were not given sufficient warning. They were told in this House by the hon. the Minister that the closing date would originally be 31 December. That was transmitted over the radio and published in the Press and it was known to everybody who was interested and wanted to take notice. Therefore it is not correct to say that they did not know.

In regard to the difference of opinion, I may say that representations were made to the Minister last year by the hon. members for Umlazi and Durban (North). They held a certain view, but the law advisers did not agree with them, and as the result of the standpoint adopted by the law advisers they have now amended this clause to make it clear that it would be extended to 1 April. We have the greatest sympathy with those British subjects in the country who hope to become citizens in the future. That is why last night, in reply to the plea of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City), I stated that the cases of British subjects who find themselves in peculiar circumstances and apply for naturalization after the expiry of this period will be consideres sympathetically and on their merits. It is really a great concession and I hope they will make use of it. But I want to repeat the appeal I made yesterday that the British subjects in this country who do not now fall under this clause and who cannot become South African citizens in this way should now register for permanent residence, so that we will not again have to hear in a year or two in this House that those people were not warned and that they had no knowledge of it. Let this appeal of mine please serve now to spread the information that if they do not fall within this extended concession and do not become South African citizens as from this day, they should at least take the next step, which is a pre-requisite for naturalization and citizenship, namely to register themselves for permanent residence. I want to express the hope that hon. members opposite will also convey this to their voters so that we will not again be reproached in a year or two.

I want to conclude by saying that in terms of this clause we have made a great concession, and however much sympathy we have for British subjects I just want to emphasize that citizenship of South Africa, like that of any other self-respecting country, is not a cheap article. We do not intend forcing our citizenship on to people and to be continually amending our legislation and extending the period so as to include new groups again, just because we want to force our citizenship on to people. Our citizenship should be regarded as something desirable. The United Party, which also boasts that they are South Africans, should now strengthen the hands of the Government in this respect by having a high regard for our citizenship, and by supporting a concession like this and appealing to their people to take the necessary steps I have indicated.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister, referring to the visit paid to him by the hon. member for Umlazi and myself and the advice we gave, now tells us that the law advisers did not agree with our view. I want to ask this: If they did not agree with our view, why is this clause being introduced at all? Is it just to cover the period from December to April?

No, it is to bring clarity.

Very well, so there was no clarity before. What the Minister means is that there was sufficient unclarity and disturbance of the picture for people to be under the impression that what is proposed in Clause 9 did not apply to them. I want to remind the Deputy Minister that the reason why we went to the Department was because of the circular they have sent to prospective citizens, which stated the law to be as set out here in Clause 9. It seems very obvious to me that the law was not as stated in that circular, but something else. It is for that reason that the Deputy Minister cannot come along now and say that we are asking for more notice and more time for these people. We are not asking for a warning in respect of the same thing that we asked for before. The Deputy Minister must remember what happened in 1962 when this provision first came up, and when the House divided and we walked over and voted with the Government on the principle that Commonwealth citizens who had had adequate warning and did not avail themselves of the opportunity to register and become citizens, had had sufficient opportunity. Our attitude has not changed at all, but our attitude in respect of these people is the same as it was in respect of those people, and it is this. We are about to change their rights and to provide that they will lose something which they have credited to them, i.e. the number of years, up to a maximum of four out of the last eight years, which will count towards their citizenship. The Deputy Minister must appreciate that there is a difference between what happened last year and what is happening now, because quite clearly they were entitled to become citizens and to be registered for permanent residence one year afterwards, provided they had four years out of the previous eight. But now, without any warning at all, they are told that from the time this Bill is passed they will not have any credit for the time they were here lawfully as Commonwealth citizens. They are being told that as from April 1963, and even before that, their period of residence counts for nothing at all. Can the Deputy Minister honestly tell the House that there are no people who, if they knew this was the law, would not have applied by April 1963?

But they were told over and over again.

But the Minister does not know how many people there are who, had they known that they would have to start all over again and wait another five years, would not have registered by 1 April. No one can say that, but I must assume that there are such people, and I think that the Minister should know why we supported this thing at the time. It was for the simple reason that our status had changed and that these people should be given sympathetic treatment, and that they had sufficient time, more than six months, in which to make up their minds. Now this is what we are complaining about to-day, that the Minister is not giving them a chance to make up their minds in the light of the new position that exists in terms of this clause. I think that if the Minister really wants to be helpful and sympathetic, he owes it to South Africa and to the efforts of the Minister of Immigration to give these people some sympathetic treatment, and to give them a chance. If they do not take up the opportunity, our attitude is that they have had warning and it is just too bad. That was our attitude in 1962 also. But what is the urgency about this? Surely the Minister will agree that citizens who have lived in South Africa for ten years are more desirable than strangers, because they know our way of life. But can the Deputy Minister tell us what the Minister meant last year when this issue was raised under his Vote and the Minister said he wanted to get a complete picture in order “to be able to make as many concessions as possible to these people”? I think that means exactly what it says—to make concessions to these people. And what is this clause doing? It certainly does not make concessions. It is making it as difficult as possible for them. It is turning them out into the street and saying that they are just to be treated like any other foreigners. But that is not the undertaking the Minister gave last year. This is going back on the word of the Minister, and I hope the Deputy Minister will reconsider his attitude in that light.

I think the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) is doing the hon. Deputy Minister a great injustice. Last year attention was drawn to the fact that there were about 2,000 tardy people who did not make application at the prescribed time. They will all be covered by this date that is now being inserted here. That undertaking was given in respect of those 2,000 people, but what do hon. members now want? They want the door to be opened more widely so that people who were not among those 2,000, people who have not yet even made application, should now be given the opportunity to do so. In other words, the number will be far larger than 2,000. There may be 6,000 people or more who will be considered if the Opposition’s amendment is adopted, and that is the point. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister gave an undertaking last year but his undertaking was not that he would give unrestricted assistance to everyone. I realize that these people are good people who will be a great asset to the country, but I also realize that the United Party have very guilty consciences to-day because they deterred large numbers of people from making use of that opportunity during the time when we were in the process of becoming a Republic. Hon. members are now delivering these strong pleas for these people because they want to salve their consciences. This may perhaps teach them a lesson not to act in this way in the future. I want to ask hon. members to be reasonable. Those people will not lose their right to make application for naturalization along the normal channels. It appears to me that hon. members are interpreting this to mean that these people will now have to wait for a further four to five years before they can make application. I do not read the clause in that way. I read it to mean that if they have already been in the country for four or five years they will be able to apply for naturalization in the usual way.

I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us that he agrees with the interpretation given to this clause by the hon. member for Heilbron. If that is the interpretation, I again suggest that there is a lack of clarity in this clause, which justifies amendment.

I think there is perhaps a misconception here. These people can apply after a year. In that respect the hon. member for Heilbron is correct, but they do not then have a right to become naturalized. That is the case to which I have already referred. The Citizenship Act provides that persons may apply after a year and then the Minister, if special circumstances exist, may approve of naturalization after a year. But that is not a right which can be claimed. In other words, the persons who do not fall within the category referred to in this clause must normally wait five years before they can be naturalized. They can start applying for naturalization after 4½ years, but as I said a moment ago and also last night, those people who have to wait five years must first make arrangements for permanent residence, because their naturalization can only be considered as from that time. If the British subjects who have not yet made arrangements for permanent residence do so now, and there are some of them who after a year feel that there are special circumstances applying in their case which put them in a position to receive consideration under Section 10 (8), they can apply for naturalization, and if their special circumstances are such that the Minister is satisfied, he can grant naturalization after a year. I hope it is now clear.

I would like to reply to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. Mitchell). He is evidently under the impression that last year, when the Minister spoke about an investigation, he thought in terms of all the remaining non-registered British subjects in the country. That was not the case. I think we should be clear about this intention the Government has. The intention never was that all British subjects could automatically acquire citizenship. The final date was set at 31 December 1962. The Government intended that to be the final date, but doubts arose, as was communicated to the Government by the hon. member and the hon. member for Umlazi. They interpreted it as meaning that they should be granted an even longer period. It affected particularly those 2,000 dilatory people who made their declarations after 31 December 1962 and up to 31 March 1963. The Government’s intention never was that those people could automatically acquire permanent residence. But because doubt existed the Government felt that it would remove the doubt and make a concession by now changing the law so that these people could have up to 1 April 1963 to apply. That is a concession which was made because doubt existed, but the original intention never was for it to be for that period, but up to 31 December. I hope that this concession will now be accepted, because it goes further than was originally intended. It covers these 2,000 people, but it definitely does not cover those people who want to apply after that. They must do it in the way I have just explained.

We have the case of these 2,000 people. The difficulty is that this clause has been interpreted in two ways, as the Minister has admitted, and clearly the Minister’s own Department at first interpreted it in the way which we considered to be the correct one. That is apparently now being changed and this clause will make it difficult for these persons to obtain naturalization. But I do not want to go into the technicalities of the thing. I want to make a plea to the Minister. We are seeking to get all the immigrants we can from all over the world. There is a group of persons who may have to wait a longer period for citizenship, which may be the full five-year period, but in very special circumstances it may be shorter, and in my view an injustice is done to these persons by this amendment, because the Minister admits there is a lack of clarity in the law, and when you clear up a lack of clarity you should at least do it on the basis which is most favourable to the persons concerned.

It was not a lack of clarity.

The Deputy Minister said it was capable of two interpretations, but I am not arguing on the law. I am making a plea to the Minister. Here we are doing everything we can to build up our White population. The Government is spending hundreds of thousands of rands to get new immigrants. Among the persons who, as the result of this clause, will not be able to get citizenship are a limited number of cases who may perhaps convince the Minister that there are special circumstances, but in the majority of cases it will take the full five years. We have persons who have been in this country for many years and many of them could already have applied for citizenship had they wished to do so. But the test is this. They have been here and if they have convictions naturally they will not be naturalized. The granting of naturalization is in the Minister’s hands. He controls the situation, and in those circumstances I submit that as the law was capable of two interpretations and his own Department made a mistake, he can forgive these persons for having made a mistake and allow them to make application. If the Minister is not prepared to do it here, my plea is that he should undertake to reconsider this clause entirely with a view to making it possible for the persons covered by this clause, if they apply within a limited period from now, to be granted citizenship, because most of them are people who have already shown that they are worthy citizens.

It is very clear to me that the Opposition are making this plea in order to try to make amends for the scandalous way in which they acted yesterday evening….

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it. I am speaking of the conduct which we all deprecated yesterday evening when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell made the appeal …

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

To-day they are trying to defend their own actions.

Order! I have said that the hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

It is very clear that any immigrant entering the country has now to wait five years before he can become a citizen but the period of 2½ years has already elapsed in the case of these people who will be ruled out in terms of the provisions of this clause because they did not apply. If they apply after two years, they will be in the same boat as immigrants who may be entering the country. I want to ask the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) what difference it makes. Are they better immigrants than the people who are now entering the country?

Those people are people who are already well known. It is very clear that they are good people. If they were not good people, the Minister would have refused their applications. But if they are people who have proved over the years that they have been in this country that they are worthy of becoming citizens of the Republic, it is within the Minister’s power to approve of their being given that citizenship.

I said that this clause dealt with the 2,000 tardy people and allowed them to apply. Let us imagine that these particular people were not tardy. There is apparently a difference of opinion amongst hon. members of the Opposition. They say that those people who did not publish that notice will now have to wait for another five years. Well, I do not read these provisions in that way. I want to tell you how the Act reads. Section 10 of Act No. 44 of 1949 states that the Minister may on application in the prescribed form and subject to the provisions of Section 29, grant a certificate of naturalization as a South African citizen to any alien who satisfies the Minister—and then the requirements are set out in the office of the Minister, not less than one year and not more than six years before the date of his application—that such person is not a minor; secondly, that he has filed a written declaration of his intention to apply for a certificate of naturalization. It is this certificate that we are discussing now. But then the Act goes further and provides that—

There is no question about this—

I do not interpret the provisions of this clause to mean the suspension of this section and an amendment of the Act in respect of those persons and that they should be told: “You will have to stay in the country for a further five years from the date of this notice before you can apply.” I really think that if hon. members consider the section in that light they will find the solution to their problem.

I just want to reply to the arguments that have been raised here. In the first place I briefly want to discuss the question of immigrants and citizenship. I hope that the position will not become confused. The Opposition have now raised the argument that on the one hand the Minister of Immigration wants immigrants to come to this country and on the other hand the Department of the Interior places so many restrictions upon immigrants that we frighten them away. Mr. Chairman, these are not conflicting ideas. We want immigrants but if immigrants come to this country they must at least know what the requirements for citizenship are. Those requirements are laid down in our Citizenship Act. That is why I said in my introductory speech that the clarification contained in this measure was necessary for the information of our immigrants so that they would know what was required of them. That is why I cannot see how this measure can in any way deter immigrants. When a person emigrates to any country at all, he does at least know what the requirements for citizenship are and he complies with them. Mr. Chairman, these 2,000 tardy people are actually the people who have been borne in mind and I hope that it will now be clear for once and for all that this is the group that is to a large extent being assisted by this concession. It was for the sake of that group that the concession was considered by the Minister. To say now that insufficient warning has been given to these people, is not correct. All the arguments raised by hon. members of the Opposition strengthen my conviction that their consciences are troubling them to a large extent in regard to this matter. In the years gone by the Opposition started such a fear-mongering campaign that it deterred these British subjects from applying for citizenship. They predicted the most ominous things that would befall us if we became a Republic. That was the propaganda of the Opposition. I hope therefore that the Opposition will also stop making all this fuss because this sort of thing does have a political sting. I want now to quote to hon. member the particular section in our Citizenship Act that refers to persons who can apply after a year. Section 10 (8) reads as follows—

It actually means that such person may perhaps have been in the country over a period of eight years; he may have left the country for a while, but if the period during which he has moved back and forth amounts in toto to eight years, then the Act lays down the four-year period of residence as a requirement. On these grounds such person may, after a year’s ordinary residence, apply for naturalization and in certain circumstances, the Minister may allow him to be naturalized after that year. I hope that the position is clear now. This is the attitude of the Government and the Government has never been in any doubt in this regard.

Question put: That “April 1963” stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—82: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G.; F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Laubschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes—46: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Con-nan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

In the first instance this clause embodies amendments to Section 8 of Act 19 of 1959 but these amendments are purely consequential. The expression “State President” is substituted for the expression “Governor-General” and the word “Republic” is substituted for the word “Union”. But there is also an additional provision and this is certainly most welcome. Pretoria is the seat of the University of South Africa and the City Council of Pretoria has already on various occasions in the past contributed to the University of South Africa although these contributions have not been regular annual contributions. But since 1962 Pretoria has been contributing a regular amount of R4,000 per annum and that is why I welcome the fact that the City Council of Pretoria will now have two members on the council of the University of South Africa. This also brings the principal Act into conformity with the statutes of other universities—that city councils can obtain representation on university councils. In the second place I am also pleased that donors are also being given recognition and that donors will now also be given representation on the council of the University of South Africa. I welcome this clause most heartily.

I rise simply to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the donors are satisfied with this provision in Clause 2 (d) ter; whether they are satisfied that the city council should nominate their representatives.

We have received no objection from these people. This is being inserted at the suggestion of the university council. The council of the university regards this as the most practical solution. The donors are scattered all over the country and it is practically impossible to bring them together once or twice a year merely to appoint a member or two. This is a practical approach to the whole matter, and this was recommended by the council of the university.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

In the short time at my disposal last night I tried to explain the provisions of this Bill. I was interrupted, firstly, by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) who wanted to help me and secondly, by you, Mr. Speaker, because it was time for the House to adjourn. It is my intention now to continue where I left off last night in connection with this Bill. I find it a little difficult to continue with the Bill because hon. members of the Opposition belonging to the legal profession have not yet turned up to listen to my remarks in this connection. I understand that they will be here soon to participate in this discussion.

Where do we find that in the Bill?

No, it is not in the Bill; we find it in our common sense.

I began last night, at the very friendly request of the hon. member for Zululand, to quote from this Bill, which is worded very clearly. Let me say that because hon. members have complained in the past that Bills have not been worded as clearly as they should have been, so clearly that every layman could understand them, I am very pleased that this Bill has been drafted in particularly simple and straightforward language. That is why it is not necessary for me to explain the provisions of this Bill to hon. members in great detail. With characteristic perception the hon. member for Zululand realized that if he asked me to quote the Bill every hon. member would understand its provisions. A fixed amount was laid down in regard to pensions for Judges in the 1959 Act, to which I shall refer hon. members just now, and we are now departing from that principle. We are no longer laying down a fixed amount; the pension will now be in proportion to the period of service of the Judge concerned. Hon. members will realize that this is not only a departure from principle but that it is indeed a departure which is certainly welcome and which it is hoped will be welcomed by hon. members of this House for the reasons that I mentioned last night. Sub-section (2) of the proposed new Section 3 inserted by Clause 1 of the Judges’ Salaries and Pensions Amendment Bill, 1964, provides—

When previously a Judge retired—it made no difference how long he had served as a Judge and it made no difference what the circumstances were—he received a fixed pension determined according to the Act, but now a Judge may eventually receive a pension which will after 15 years’ service amount to half of his salary. Does the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) understand me when I explain it in this way? Well, then that is good.

Do you suggest that if the hon. member for Boland understands it we will all understand it?

No, I simply mean that the hon. member for Boland is my barometer; if he understands it then I take it that the hon. member for Kensington half understands it. It therefore amounts to the fact, as I have said, that after 15 years a Judge can be paid half his salary in the form of a pension. Hon. members must of course realize that Judges can only retire at the age of 65. They can also continue until they reach the age of 70 and it is actually an unwritten rule that Judges should remain in their posts until they reach the age of 70 if their health allows them to do so. It is encouraging to note how these old gentlemen are still doing their duty by the State and by our administration of justice at this advanced age.

Hon. members may now ask me what we are doing in regard to Judges who have already retired while we are now making ample provision—and I emphasize the word “ample”—for Judges who may retire in the future. Let me say quite clearly that I have a great deal of sympathy for Judges who have already retired. If it were possible for me to do so and if it were possible for the Government to do so, I should like very much to treat Judges who have already retired in the same way as Judges who will retire in the future. The fact that we have not done so here is certainly not because we are not in sympathy with them but it is because there are, very understandably, complications that will arise in regard to other public service pensioners if we make an exception in this case. Hon. members must realize that it is impossible to deal with Judges who have retired in the past in the same way as with Judges who will retire in the future. But I did feel—and I think hon. members will share this feeling with me—that we should do something in respect of the old gentlemen who retired at the age of 70, who are still alive and who are receiving smaller pensions. That is why hon. members will see that provision is being made in this Bill for an increase in the pensions of those Judges who retired at the age of 70. Their pensions are now being increased by an amount of R500. In brief, Mr. Speaker, these are the main principles in the Bill.

What about the widows?

The hon. member has asked me about the widows. I explained this point last night but I shall do so with pleasure again for the sake of the hon. member who apparently was not here last night. As I said last night, the fact remains that this is a contributory pension scheme. Judges, just like Members of Parliament, contribute a certain amount each month in order to ensure a pension for their widows. I said last night that without compromising myself I was prepared to investigate the question of increased widows’ pensions provided Judges were prepared to make increased contributions. Everything therefore depends upon them. I put the matter to them …

What about the widows of ex-Judges?

We have had to deal with the cases of some of these widows. I do not know exactly how many are still living. Of course, they are free to petition the Select Committee on Pensions as they have done in the past. I know of some of them who have done so, and indeed, who have been granted pensions by the Select Committee. Hon. members will remember that pensions for the widows of Judges were first introduced in 1959 by the National Government which was then, just as it is now, in Government in South Africa.

These then in brief are the provisions of this Bill. The other clauses of this Bill have merely been inserted to convert pounds into rands and cents and I take it that hon. members will have no objection to them. I move.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches welcome this piece of legislation. In fact, we have asked in the past that Judges’ pensions should be reconsidered. We welcome the increase which takes place as also the other provisions of this Bill. We are proud of our judiciary in this country. We believe it is right that additional provision should be made for various reasons. Firstly, the Judges have earned it; secondly, they stand in very high esteem and in no circumstances should they have any financial difficulties after their retirement. Of course, in very many cases, Judges—and I believe it applies to far the bigger proportion of them—have been persons who, in private practice, would have been able to make very adequate provision for their families. To my certain personal knowledge very many of those who have adorned our Bench were persons whose rate of income, at the time that they took their seats on the Bench, was anything up to five times and more the amount that they received when the honour of a judgeship was given to them. They did not hesitate, Sir. They have played a very big part in upholding the traditions of our judiciary of which we are all very proud. We therefore welcome the additional provision which is made here. We believe that it is right. We are very glad that the hon. the Minister will go into the question of the widows. It would appear that it is reasonable, but if additional provision is to be made there then there should be additional contributions. I sincerely hope that finality can be reached at a very early stage and that it may still be possible for legislation of that sort to be put before this House this year.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member who has just sat down has said. Our legal system in South Africa is, probably one of the most outstanding, together with that of England, in the whole world. We have always had problems. Advocates who have had successful practices have experienced problems in joining the Bench in that they have suffered financial losses. The position has changed considerably. The difficulty as far as a Judge is concerned is that he may not be a director of a company. Mr. Justice Broome in his new book “Not the Whole Truth” states that a Judge may not resign to accept another appointment; he even says that after a Judge has retired he ought not to take up any other appointment; that he ought not even to enter politics. That is why it is an encouraging sign that these new scales have been introduced as far as Judges are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members on both sides of the House for the support which they have given to this Bill. I can make no promises to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) but can only say that as soon as finality has been reached in regard to this matter—and that does not depend upon me—if this House is not sitting, I shall take the matter further if the investigation shows that that is what should be done.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) mentioned a point in passing which I wholeheartedly endorse. I should really appreciate it, as Minister of Justice—and I think that the whole country and our administration of justice will appreciate it—if retired Judges would pay attention to the words of Mr. ex-Justice Broome and not become involved in contentious matters—let us call them that—and not be guilty of contentious action, as is necessarily the case in politics. We are only human, Mr. Speaker. I can very well imagine—this is only one obvious argument—if a litigant loses a case before a certain Judge and the Judge then retires and immediately enters politics that that litigant may quite easily say: “Yes, I lost because my politics differed from his”. It is so unnecessary for our Bench to be placed in that position. Because better provision is now being made I also sincerely hope, together with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North), that we will not have a repetition of this sort of thing in the future. I thank hon. members for the support that they have given me in this connection.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this is truly a Bill which may move hon. members to tears because it is a Bill which deals with tear-gas. It is a Bill that has already been passed by the hon. Senate and which has already received the support of the members of that body. It is now being introduced into this House so that hon. members may also give their approval to it. The reason why we have to approach Parliament in connection with this matter is that it may sound strange even though it is a fact, that no legislation has ever been introduced in the past to control the manufacture and possession of tear-gas. I think hon. members will agree with me that not only as a result of the times in which we are living but also taking things generally, it is absolutely necessary that we should have control over the manufacture and possession of tear-gas. Mr. Speaker, it is a dangerous weapon and all dangerous weapons must of course be placed under control. By means of this Bill therefore we want to be able to control the manufacture and possession of tear-gas.

If hon. members look at the Bill they will see that it is provided in Clause 2 that nobody may manufacture in or import into the Republic any article that is used to release tear-gas or is intended for that purpose. He may only do so in terms of a permit which may be issued to him in terms of this clause. A factory was erected a short while ago to manufacture tear-gas in South Africa. Large-scale advertising was also done in connection with the sale of tear-gas. That tear-gas that is manufactured in that way is sold to members of the public in certain containers but it is the considered opinion of experts in this sphere that the ownership, or rather, the use of that tear-gas, holds far more danger for the user thereof than it does for the person against whom it is being used. Hon. members who have a knowledge of this matter—I am convinced that the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) has a knowledge of this matter—will agree with me that this is indeed the case. That is why it is not necessary for me to motivate this point any further for hon. members.

Clause 2 makes further provision whereby the manufacture or the import of the gas can only be done by way of permit. That permit can be withdrawn in terms of Clause 2 (2) if certain things take place; firstly, if the conditions under which that permit has been issued have not been complied with; secondly, if the person commits an offence in terms of this Bill and, thirdly, if and when it is in the public interest to withdraw such permit.

The other important clause in this Bill deals with persons who are permitted to have tear-gas in their possession. In the first instance of course there is the individual who is issued with a permit in this regard and in the second instance the class of persons published in the Government Gazette as being a class of persons who may possess tear-gas. Of course, the police form part of this class of persons as do members of the prisons department. I can also think of certain public bodies that may be classified as forming part of this class of persons.

The Bill also makes provision for inspection by the police and by a magistrate. Inspection similar to that laid down in the Arms and Ammunition Act, is provided for in this Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill sets out the offences and the penalties that may be imposed in that connection and Clause 6 of the Bill determines the scope of the Bill—that it applies not only to the Republic but also to South West Africa.

The question that was put to me in the other place and that I want to answer here in advance is whether the passing of this Bill will not invalidate the licences that people have to possess gas pistols. My reply is, no; they will not be affected by it at all because that has nothing to do with this Bill. Gas pistols are, I think, covered by Section 25 of the Arms and Ammunition Act. A gas pistol has in terms of that Act been declared a dangerous weapon and a person owning a gas pistol to-day owns it in terms of the permit that he has received. So no matter what interpretation we give to this legislation, such person has not only obtained that pistol in a legal manner, but what is more, he holds a legal permit to have a gas pistol in his possession. I went into this point very carefully with the law advisers and they assured me that there was no doubt at all that persons owning gas pistols would after the passing of this Bill be able to retain those pistols and that nothing at all would be done to affect their possession of such pistols.

I told hon. members in passing that a factory had been erected for the manufacture of tear-gas. At a very early stage I warned the persons concerned in this industry that I was going to introduce legislation in this connection. I had long discussions with the people concerned. It is very pleasant for me to be able to tell this House that those persons are in complete agreement with the provisions of this Bill and that they are satisfied with its provisions.

These, Mr. Speaker, are the principles contained in this Bill which I now place before this House for its approval.

Sir, this is also a Bill which we welcome from this side of the House. It seems necessary that there should be control. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is correct in regard to the gas pistol. The Arms and Ammunition Act is controlled by the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice, I understand. It is just a question of the wording here, Sir, because it refers to the holding of a permit issued by the Minister. I think it is somewhat doubtful. It may be worthwhile checking it again. I take it that we have the hon. the Minister’s assurance that if that opinion turns out not to be correct at least no action will be taken by his Department.

No, no action will be taken.

In those circumstances, Sir, we support this Bill. We think it should be put on the Statute Book.

I do not want to have any misunderstanding in regard to this question of the ownership of gas pistols. I thank the hon. member for his support. I can give him the assurance that these provisions will not at all affect a person who is in possession of a gas pistol, even though it might appear that the interpretation being given to this clause is not the correct one. If the interpretation is not correct I will make the necessary amendment but I can assure the hon. member that there is not the slightest danger that gas pistols will be covered by the provisions of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I object, Sir, for the reason of the Order Paper as we find it to-day. I call to mind that recently, and particularly under the new rules, we decided to advance the first night-sitting day from the 6th to the 11th day in order to give the Government an opportunity of building up the Order Paper. Difficulty had been experienced and we returned to the old rule to allow the Order Paper to be built up. That does not appear to be sufficient, Sir. What we have been doing since Parliament commenced has been to adjourn early on various days so that there will be business for the subsequent days and to eke out the business from day to day.

This has the effect, in the first place, that when Bills are published we have to deal with them relatively quickly. Because of the meagre amount of business on the Order Paper, the business that is there has to be proceeded with at once. It does not give a fair opportunity to the Opposition to consider the measures that are coming before them. The Government are in the happy position of having considered the legislation, it having been before their Cabinet and having been with the department, with the result that they, or at least some of them, know a great deal about the legislation which comes forward. They are not placed in the position in which we are placed. They have the Minister in charge introducing a particular Bill. The Opposition is placed at a distinct disadvantage when Bills come forward rapidly and they have to deal with them immediately. That has been the case in the last few days. I do not complain about it in the sense that there have been many controversial Bills. It is true that there have not been many. I want to be quite fair in the opposition that I am making to this adjournment. There have only been a limited number of controversial measures so far in the Session.

The result of this—and this has already been the case in regard to some of the measures we have passed during this Session, the publication of a measure and its passage through the various stages in quick succession—is that the public outside are almost unaware of what legislation is going through in this House. There is no opportunity for outside interests to make their views known, and there is not the opportunity for members who are interested to consult outside interests. That was very marked in regard to one of the measures that we have passed. We managed by urgent messages and otherwise to get opinions and the views of large outside interests; the workers’, commercial and industrial opinions we required. I think it is wrong that it should take place. If we are going to follow a proper parliamentary democracy then the legislation put through this Parliament should be passed in the full glare of public opinion. I think that is essential to the system that we practise in this country.

This is not a problem that belongs entirely to this Government. Other governments have had the same problem. But the observation I make this afternoon is that it is getting worse instead of better. And the Government promised to rectify this problem. The Prime Minister, on a previous occasion when this was raised, took very particular notice of it and said that the matter would be gone into and that it would be seen whether something could not be done. There may be various things that you may do. You may decide to start the Session later in the year and have Bills ready. I do not know whether that would make any difference. I know on earlier occasions when that has been done, when the session started later, the problem was still there in the earlier part of the session. It seems to me that the only remedy is that legislation should be published earlier, certainly sufficient legislation to keep us going should be ready and available. I do not want to be misunderstood in any way in what I have said. It does not detract from the very good relations that exist as far as the running of the mechanics of the House between the Whips of the two sides are concerned. That relationship has been excellent and when we have made representations in regard to Bills they have been met.

Even now!

No, not even now. We were prepared to go on. It is you who have decided to adjourn the House. We were prepared to go on with the item in which you are so interested, the Bills of Exchange. We are quite ready for that. I want to make it clear that from my point of view there have been amicable discussions between the Whips and there is no hitch in that regard.

Amicable even now?

I am stating a problem. The Minister of Finance does not seem to appreciate when things are amicable. If the Minister of Finance wants to fight I shall take quite a different line. I think this problem should have some consideration given to it. I know the Leader of the House has been concerned. I do not know what we are going to do next week, for instance. There is very little on the Order Paper to occupy the House next week. After all we are here to legislate and to get on with the business. I therefore leave it to those responsible in the Government to consider this matter as to whether some improvement cannot be made to avoid the situation in which we find ourselves this afternoon.

I did not hear what the hon. member said at the beginning of his speech; I was unfortunately not here. But I think I know what he said and it is probably what he said last year. Quite apart from the fact that he probably said it last year, I must admit that there is a large amount of truth in what the hon. member has said. The hon. member knows just as well as I do the difficulties which any Government has with legislation at the beginning of the session. He has not only been Opposition Chief Whip, he has also been Government Chief Whip and he knows the difficulties.

Last year we had discussions in which he also took part, not only across the floor of the House, but at our weekly Whips’ meetings, meetings at which we tried to get round this difficulty of having legislation prepared earlier so that there will be sufficient legislation available to bring before Parliament in the first weeks of the Session, which are also the most difficult. At some previous alteration of the parliamentary rules, the majority, against the advice of the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition and myself, who I think, knew more about the procedure of Parliament than the other members of that committee, voted that Parliament should start sitting in the evenings after the seventh day instead of the eleventh day. It was found to be completely impracticable. Parliament always reminds me rather of one of our very good mail trains: It starts very slowly and when it once gets into full speed, it is very difficult to stop it. But we discussed this matter and certain steps were taken. I can even mention that the Cabinet dealt with all legislation which had to come before Parliament this Session a month earlier than we had done in the past and a month earlier than hon. members on the other side did when they were in the Government, to try and get round this difficulty. Well, Sir, it seems obvious that if you start a month earlier to consider your legislation, you will have more ready. But it does not always work that way, because when legislation is agreed to by Cabinet, the different officials get hold of it and if they have so long to think about it, they start suggesting alterations, and to a certain extent you defeat the whole object of having that legislation ready a month earlier. I grant that this is an unfortunate state of affairs. But another reason that I can mention I think is to the credit of Parliament, but we did not foresee that possibility last year, and that is the new rules under which we are working. They have had quite a lot to do with it and we have been caught unawares. Because with the new rules not only are the speeches shorter, but the discussions are also shorter because the shorter speeches have created almost a feeling of urgency amongst all members that we must get on with the work. The prevailing spirit is to get on with the work and the result is that we find ourselves in this position. The number of Bills is not small. There are 19 Orders on the Order Paper and we have already dealt with various stages of 10 or 15 of these Bills. During this Session we have already dealt with 25 to 30 Bills, but this sense of urgency to get them through which has been engendered I think by the new spirit which has been created by our new rules is also a factor which plays a very important part.

I have already discussed this matter with the Chief Whip on the other side and we have already thought of various steps which can be taken, not this year unfortunately, but next year, to ease the position. But this is the position we find ourselves in at present, and I am afraid at the present time it is rather inevitable. We hope, however, that we will be able to discuss this matter in the recess and see that in future we will give Parliament in its present feeling of urgency and its desire to get legislation passed, ample work to satisfy its demands.

Motion put and agreed to.