I move—

Growth and stability are the two main economic objectives of budgetary policy. The prudent Minister of Finance will never neglect either of these two objectives, but, as economic conditions change, it may be wise for him to lay more stress on the one or the other.

Last year the emphasis of my Budget was on growth. Growth we have achieved, in what rich measure I shall presently show. If we can maintain this economic growth and at the same time preserve financial stability then we shall have gained a glittering prize indeed—in piscatorial terms, a catch worthy of even the most distinguished fisherman.

But to land this elusive quarry of sustainable economic growth is no easy task. It requires a seaworthy political craft with a competent crew. The fiscal tackle must be adequate and in good condition. The bait must be the right type for the prevailing economic conditions and for our particular quarry— sometimes the artificial lure of State expenditure, at other times the natural lure of private enterprise, or again a controlled measure of both. A sound knowledge of the economic weather and financial currents is essential.

The angler should not become impatient or over-hasty to land the big fish of prosperity and stability. His hand on the fiscal line should be light, sometimes guiding, sometimes restraining, but always purposeful. He must beware of the sharks of inflation that infest the economic seas to snatch away the prosperity and stability that is on the hook. He must be wary of the undercurrents of boycotts and sanctions that threaten to carry his prize away. He should be able to sense the jagged underwater rocks that endanger his reserves and balance of payments—that may entangle and even cut his line and so let the big one get away. Indeed, it is after the fish has been hooked that the skill, strength and artistry of the fisherman are tested to the utmost.

Before setting out on our expedition, let us first take a look at the present and prospective economic weather conditions on our fishing grounds. I shall start with the—

Internal Economic Position

The gross national product rose from R6,068,000,000 in 1962 to R6,679,000,000 in 1963, an increase of no less than 10 per cent. After allowing for changes in the price level, the increase in the real gross national product was approximately 9 per cent, compared with 7 per cent in the previous year. Per head of population, this means a growth rate of over 6½ per cent per annum.

In my Budget speech last year I said that personal consumption, while increasing, might still need some further stimulation. I am glad to say that the treatment has been successful and this fish is much bigger and fatter than last year. Personal consumption expenditure in 1963 rose to R4,300,000,000—10½ per cent above the 1962 figure. Increased purchases of durable goods were mainly responsible for this steep rise.

Current expenditure by public authorities, which helped so much to stimulate the economic revival in 1962, continued to expand in 1963, but at a slightly lower rate.

Despite the increase in consumption, inventories continued to rise throughout 1963, so that the country is well stocked with most types of goods.

Fixed capital investment was another category of expenditure about which I did not feel entirely satisfied last year. During the second half of 1963, however, there was a marked rise in fixed investment, both public and private. As regards the former, the Railways Administration was the main contributor, though the public corporations also increased their fixed capital investment substantially. In the private sector, large increases occurred in residential building and in fixed investment in industry and commerce. Over the year 1963 as a whole, total fixed investment rose by 17 per cent and this increase has played, and will continue to play, an important part in sustaining the growth of the economy.

Most of the principal sectors of economic activity shared in the rapid expansion of the economy. The index of the physical volume of manufacturing production showed an increase of 12.9 per cent in 1963 as compared with 1962; there was a particularly sharp rise in the production of electrical machinery, metal products, petroleum products and paper. Employment in manufacturing industry rose by 6.8 per cent over the same period.

The expansion of the building and construction industry was one of the major features of the economic upsurge in 1963. Although employment in this industry was only 5.4 per cent higher than in 1962, the value of buildings completed increased by nearly 17 per cent and of building plans passed by no less than 64 per cent.

Gold production again reached record levels, though the increase was not so great in 1963 as in 1962. Production and sales of other minerals were, in general, well maintained, though the sale of uranium oxide was again reduced as a result of the stretch-out agreement.

Except for the last quarter of 1963, agriculture was not favoured by good weather, and drought conditions are now again prevalent in certain areas. As a result of improved farming methods, however, agricultural production in general showed a slight increase in 1963 as compared with the previous year; in value, it rose from R874,000,000 to R892,000,000. Prices showed a marked improvement, especially in export markets; in the second half of 1963, for example, the wool price was about 22 per cent higher than a year earlier. Moreover, the present trend of export prices is still upward. Prices of farming requirements, on the other hand, have risen very little if at all. The consumption of agricultural products, which in recent years has scarcely kept pace with the growth of population, is now showing welcome signs of more rapid expansion.

All the other principal economic indices confirm the impression of vigorous growth. Unemployment continued to decline, while retail sales, railway revenue, real estate transactions, company profits and share prices all increased substantially in 1963. One index, I am glad to say, showed only a slight rise over the year; that is the index of consumer prices, which in December 1963 was only about 1 per cent higher than a year earlier. I shall return to this point later.

Closer analysis indicates that the economic upsurge proceeded at a somewhat slower rate during the fourth quarter of 1963 than in earlier months; this trend is evident in industrial production, in employment, in private consumption, and in the gross national product itself. This tendency was inevitable as the slack in the economy was progressively taken up, i.e. as unemployed labour and unused industrial capacity were drawn into the productive process and as the economy approached a state of full employment. It seems likely, therefore, that the exceptionally high rate of growth experienced in early and middle 1963 will not be repeated in 1964, but that a more normal rate of expansion will ensue.

Before giving further attention to the prospects for 1964, however, I should like to say something about—

The Balance of Payments

The most striking feature of the balance of payments in 1963 was the steep rise in imports, which increased to R1,296,000,000 nearly 24 per cent above the 1962 level. This increase, which was made possible by some relaxation of import control, was a natural consequence of the general expansion of the economy, and was also an important factor in restraining inflationary pressures.

The volume of merchandise exports maintained a satisfactory level and as the prices of several of the principal products improved during the year, the total value of exports (excluding gold) increased to a record figure of R1,014,000,000. Wool, maize, sugar, copper and diamonds were mainly responsible for the increase.

Gold production, as I have already mentioned, attained a new record level, viz. R688,000,000.

As a result of increased freight and insurance payments associated with higher imports, net invisible imports in 1963 were about R30,000,000 above the 1962 level.

The net result of all these changes in the current account of the balance of payments was that the surplus declined from R307,000,000 in 1962 to R143,000,000 in 1963. During the last quarter of 1963, after allowing for seasonal movements, the surplus was actually running at an annual rate of only R56,000,000, and it seems clear that—as was to be expected with the rapid growth in the economy—the era of large surpluses on current account is coming to an end.

On capital account there was a net inflow of R12,000,000 in official capital in 1963, resulting mainly from trade credits and from investment in non-resident bonds. The total identified net outflow of private capital over the year amounted to about R95,000,000. This is a high figure, but R87,000,000 of this was due to purchases by South Africans of South African securities held by foreigners, mainly through the so-called “permit” and “arbitrage” schemes. During the last quarter of 1963, despite the fact that the amount of foreign exchange made available under these schemes was increased, the net private capital outflow was only R4,000,000, indicating that there was a substantial net inflow of private capital in other forms.

All these various movements in the balance of payments resulted in an increase of R87,000,000 in our reserves of gold and foreign exchange during 1963. As I predicted last year, this is considerably less than the exceptional increase in 1962 (R188,000,000), but is still a most satisfactory figure. Since the beginning of 1964—in fact since the end of the third quarter of 1963—the reserves have shown little change, indicating that the balance of payments is now approximately in equilibrium.

The balance of payments has continued to exercise an important influence on—

Monetary and Financial Developments

The continuance of the external surplus enabled relatively easy conditions in the money and capital markets to be maintained throughout 1963. This has facilitated the expansion of economic activity and particularly of investment.

The discounts and advances of the commercial banks (seasonally adjusted, and excluding advances to the Land Bank) increased fairly steeply in the first part of 1963, but tended to level off in the last quarter. The banks’ liquid asset ratio, after declining to 42.8 per cent in September, rose to 44.4 per cent at the end of the year. The Reserve Bank’s discounts, advances and investments remained fairly low, while its legal reserve ratio at the end of December was still at the high level of 84.5 per cent. All this indicates that there is still very considerable credit-creating potential in the banking system.

Conditions in the money market—despite record credit facilities extended to the private sector by the merchant banks—remained liquid throughout 1963. The pressure of liquid funds was, however, reduced by the so-called “swop arrangements” whereby the commercial banks were allowed to invest limited amounts abroad, by increased allocations under the “arbitrage” scheme for share purchases abroad, and by the continuation of the Treasury’s policy of borrowing more than was required to meet Government expenditure. Short-term interest rates nevertheless remained low in 1963. Since the beginning of 1964, however, these rates have hardened, probably as a result of increased tax collections, the continued expansion of economic activity and the levelling-off of the reserves.

In the capital market, despite appreciable new issues of securities, ample supplies of funds continued to be available. Share prices remained generally high and the average yield on industrial and commercial shares at the close of the year was only about 4£ per cent; on long-life gold-mining shares it was just over 6 per cent.

These low yields reveal the growing attraction of equities for institutional and private investors but, at the same time, they probably also reflect the presence of speculative expectations in a rising market. I would earnestly appeal to banks and other financial institutions not to allow this latter tendency to derive support from easy credit conditions, as this may mar the picture of our healthy economy as presented by a buoyant stock exchange.

Mortgage advances by building societies and other financial institutions rose appreciably, but mortgage rates remained steady.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have now analysed the prevailing economic weather conditions in sufficient detail to enable us to draw some general conclusions regarding the economic prospects and fiscal policy.

But before doing so I would like to recall something I said three years ago, almost to a day. On the day that South Africa was forced to make its exit from the Commonwealth on 15 March 1961, and against the judgment of many financial pundits, I dared to make the following declaration of faith:

The financial picture I have just painted is the finest vindication of the faith I expressed on that fateful Ides of March. I will surely have wider support in reaffirming, three years later, our faith in the future of our economy and our country!

I now return to—

Economic Prospects and Fiscal Policy

The growth of the economy during the past year has been spectacular, but the slack has now largely been taken up, resources are almost fully employed, and the rate of expansion has settled down in recent months to more sustainable levels. So far there has been no sign of general demand inflation; indeed the steadiness of the price level, both wholesale and retail, has been remarkable.

In certain industries, however, particularly the construction industry, bottlenecks have developed and prices and costs have risen. A shortage of skilled labour is likely to present difficulties in these industries, though the magnitude of these difficulties should not be exaggerated. Up to the present, these bottlenecks have not caused any significant diffusion of inflationary tendencies in the economy. At worst, they have tended to weaken anti-inflationary forces.

In general, conditions are favourable for continued economic growth. Both consumption and investment are running at high levels, while financially there is still adequate liquidity to provide for further economic expansion. This expansion is likely to continue on its own momentum without requiring any special stimulation.

While it is important that nothing should be done to check this expansion, it is clear that the emphasis of economic and fiscal policy should shift slightly from the stimulation of growth to the preservation of stability. Broadly speaking, growth can now be left to take care of itself, but stability may need the attention of the authorities.

Fortunately, there are many favourable factors on the side of stability. I have already mentioned that adequate stocks of most types of goods are available, and although the economy is almost at a full employment level, the production of South African industry is doubtless still capable of further expansion, especially as new capacity now being installed comes into use and as immigration continues to supplement the local supply of skilled labour.

From the balance of payments side, there are also grounds for optimism. Gold production is likely to increase slightly, while economic conditions in our overseas markets are favourable for the maintenance of exports at a high level. It should therefore be possible to import sufficient goods to relieve any shortages of imported goods and so contain inflationary pressures. My colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, has already stated that import control will be directed to this end.

It is true that, with the continued decline of the surplus on the current account of the balance of payments, we may not be able to permit the repatriation of South African securities at the pace prevailing in recent months and at the same time maintain our reserves at an adequate level. Our reserves are relatively satisfactory, and a moderate decline would cause me no disquiet, but obviously we shall have to watch the position carefully.

To return to the internal economic situation, the problem of bottlenecks will certainly require attention. As regards skilled labour, the Government is doing and will continue to do its best, through training and through immigration, to alleviate the shortage. But employers can also do much through the more efficient use of the existing labour force, through organized systems of in-service training, and through greater use of those types of labour which are not yet fully employed, such as the older workers and the partially disabled.

The public sector can also help to relieve the pressure in the construction industry by postponing, where possible, capital construction projects or by spreading the work over a longer period of time. This, however, is not always so easily done. Many projects are in fact essential to continued economic expansion in the private sector and cannot be postponed without seriously retarding that expansion. For social as well as economic reasons others, such as schools and hospitals, cannot be unduly delayed. But so far as it is possible, it is the duty of the Government, the Provincial Administrations and the Local Authorities to curb their capital construction programmes at the present time.

There is no immediate danger of general demand inflation, and a stern anti-inflationary budget would at present be altogether out of place. But it would clearly be equally inappropriate to apply any general stimulation to the economy. Government expenditure will have to be held in check as far as possible—though here considerations of national defence must take precedence. It would likewise be unreasonable for the taxpayer, who is now enjoying the fruits of last year’s expansionary budget and the country’s prosperity, to expect a repetition of last year’s largesse. However, it may be possible to find a few choice morsels for deserving cases.

I turn now to the Government’s accounts for—

The Financial Year, 1963-4

I mentioned last year that the introduction of P.A.Y.E. made an accurate estimate of revenue most difficult. For this reason, and also because the growth of the economy exceeded even my expectations, it is not surprising that the surplus on Revenue Account for the current year will be about R88,000,000. Of this amount, R82,000,000 is attributable to an under-estimate of Inland Revenue. Customs and Excise receipts have also been well above the original estimates, but this was nearly off-set by increased expenditure—notably the R10,000,000 voted for Defence in the Additional Estimates.

On Loan Account, where it is always difficult to estimate in advance the expenditure on large capital projects during the year, expenditure will probably be some R10,000,000 less than originally estimated; this includes savings of R7,000,000 on Housing and R4,500,000 on Community Development. At 31 March 1964 the Loan Account should show a small credit balance of R3,000,000.

Next I shall deal with—

The Loan Account, 1964-5

The Estimates of Expenditure on Loan Account which I shall Table amount to R315,000,000, or R16,000,000 more than the Main Estimates for 1963-4.

The expanding economy has led to increasing demands upon the Railways, and a total of R89,500,000 has been provided for the Railway Administration under Loan Vote A— R19,500,000 more than in the current year. For similar reasons it has been necessary to step up the Post Office’s Loan Vote by R4,600,000.

Under Loan Vote E—Water Affairs—an amount of R31,600,000 is requested, or R11,300,000 more than in the current year. This increase is almost entirely due to increased provision for the Orange River Project, construction on which is expected to get under way during 1964-5. Provision for all other Government water schemes amounts to R14,000,000, which is not far in excess of the amount provided in the current year.

Since the Department of Coloured Affairs is now responsible for school building, Loan Vote P shows an increase of about R6,000,000.

On Loan Vote N—Bantu Administration and Development—an amount of R32,000,000 is provided for the South African Native Trust. Together with an anticipated carry-over of R4,500,000 from the 1963-4 grant-in-aid, this will enable no less than R36,500,000 to be spent by the Trust in the Bantu Areas during the next financial year.

On the other hand, the Vote “Commerce and Industries” has been reduced by R13,300,000 principally because of the disappearance of the R16,000,000 provision for the synthetic rubber project.

It will be recalled that for the current year an amount of R26,000,000 was provided for Defence on Loan Account. In the changed economic circumstances now prevailing, I think it advisable to revert to our former practice of providing all our Defence requirements on the Revenue Vote; the Defence Loan Vote therefore falls away.

Assistance to Marginal Gold Mines

Apart from the amount shown on the printed Estimates, I propose to ask the House to vote an amount on the Loan Vote for assistance to the marginal gold mines. Last year the Government announced a scheme to assist certain vulnerable gold mines which were threatened with premature closure because of the heavy cost of pumping water flowing into them from adjoining mines which had already closed down. I propose that this scheme be continued and under the Revenue Vote I shall ask for an additional R600,000 in 1964-5 for this purpose. There are, however, other marginal mines where other types of assistance seem to be justified, and after close study of the problem the Government proposes to grant loans to such mines to assist them to keep going. My colleague the Minister of Mines will give details of the scheme in due course, but broadly speaking the idea is to grant loans to approved mines to cover working losses (up to 10 per cent of revenue) and to meet approved capital expenditure; such loans would be repayable out of profits as and when they arise and would be written off when the mines concerned are forced to cease underground operations. Interest charged would be 5 per cent, of which 3 per cent would be capitalized. The amount required in 1964-5 would be R3,000,000.

The principal object of both schemes is to lengthen the lives of the mines concerned. This will not only help the mine employees but also give more time to the communities serving these mines to adapt themselves to changing conditions. It will permit a considerable quantity of gold to be mined which would otherwise be lost to the country, and will enable the relative mines to resume full and profitable production if and when the price of gold is increased.

South West Africa

The Report of the Odendaal Commission still has to be considered by the South West African Legislative Assembly, and I do not wish to anticipate in any way the decisions of that body. I think it would be prudent, however, to make some provision for assistance to the Territory in terms of the Report, and I propose to set aside R20,000,000 provisionally for this purpose.

The expenditure which may have to be met from Loan Account therefore amounts to R338,000,000. In addition, provision has to be made for the following:

The total sum required is therefore R500,000,000.

Holders of the maturing local stock will be offered conversion into new stocks, and in view of the prevailing liquidity I am confident that a large proportion will be reinvested.

Similarly, holders of maturing tax-free Treasury Bonds will be able to convert into the present issue of 4½ per cent seven-year bonds, and I expect that a large number will take advantage of this opportunity.

The repayment of such a considerable amount of Loan Levy has disturbing inflationary implications if the money should pass into general circulation, and I hope that those who receive this repayment will exercise restraint and reinvest a substantial portion. I shall consider, at a later stage, whether some special inducement should be given for such reinvestment.

The 3¼ per cent Three Year Non-Resident Bonds have proved extremely popular and sales during the past seven months have exceeded R25,000,000. While I do not wish to close this door to the genuine foreign investor who wishes to withdraw his capital, I think the terms of the present issue are too favourable. The present issue will therefore be closed forthwith and a new issue of Non-Resident Bonds will be made available on more realistic terms to be announced in due course.

The Government is not at present drawing against its revolving credits with American and German banks, and these credits, totalling R35,700,000, are available when required. In addition, I think it would be possible to raise new external loans to an amount of R15,000,000.

Estate Duty

I have one tax change to propose which affects the Loan Account, and that is in respect of Estate Duty. The various deductions allowed in assessing this duty were fixed in 1955 and I think some concession is now justified. The rebate for a child will therefore be raised from R10,000 to R12,500, while the maximum amount of insurance policies, Government Stocks and Land Bank debentures exempted from inclusion in the estate will be raised from R10,000 to R15,000. This concession will take effect immediately and will cost R700,000.

To sum up, the following funds should be available for the Loan Account—

I propose to transfer to Loan Account R16,000,000 out of the surplus on Revenue Account for 1963-4. This will then leave a balance of R60,000,000 still to be found. I intend to raise this within South Africa by the issue of stock or Treasury Bills.

I shall next deal with the—

Estimates of Expenditure on Revenue Account, 1964-5

The printed Estimates, which I shall Table, provide for expenditure of R1,013,800,000— R161,000,000 more than the Main Estimates for the current year.

As was the case during the past two years, Defence is responsible for the lion’s share of this increase, namely R88,000,000. I must point out, however, that the contribution to the Defence Special Equipment Account, R36,000,000, is included in this figure, whereas in 1963-4 this item was voted on Loan Account. The provision for Defence for 1964-5, namely R40,000,000, is actually R52,000,000 higher than the total provision for 1963-4 in the main and additional Estimates on both Loan and Revenue Accounts. This is still a large increase, but I am sure that this House will have no hesitation in furnishing the wherewithal to discourage foreign aggression. I need not enlarge upon the threats which have been hurled at our country—threats which, at another time, would have called down the condemnation of the civilized world. If I do not believe that these threats will be translated into action, it is only because I know—and those who threaten us know— that our defences are strong and getting stronger by the day.

There is also a substantial increase— R17,900,000—in the provision for Coloured Affairs. Of this amount, R16,500,000 is due to the taking over and expansion of Coloured Education by the Department.

On the Vote of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, R13,000,000 is provided as a grant to the Transkei.

If these exceptional increases are excluded, the increase on the current year’s main Estimates amounts to about 5 per cent or R43,000,000, which is very close to the figure for the normal average expansion of departmental activities during the past few years.

In the Supplementary Estimates I propose to ask the House for additional provision for certain services.

There is one group which has perhaps shared less than any other in the general prosperity of the country; I refer to the pensioners. I feel that some concession here is justified even if the effect should tend to be mildly inflationary.

Social Pensions

Last year, as hon. members will recall, additional relief was granted to the neediest categories of social pensioners—those who had no assets of their own and only a very limited casual income. While this concession brought relief where it was most needed, it has given rise to some dissatisfaction among those who just failed to qualify for the additional allowance, and has also caused some administrative difficulties to the Department. I propose, therefore, to extend to other social pensioners and beneficiaries the relief which last year was granted only to the neediest. A White old-age pensioner, for example, will now receive a pension of R324 per annum provided his property and income do not exceed the usual limits, and proportionate relief will be granted to non-White pensioners. I shall Table a White Paper giving details of the concessions. The cost will be R3,450,000.

I propose also to grant further concessions in respect of—

Military Pensions

War pensioners are in receipt of a bonus equal to 45 per cent of their basic pensions and allowances. I propose now to grant a bonus also in respect of supplementary and alternative war pensions, on a basis set out in the White Paper which I shall Table. A White war pensioner in receipt of a supplementary pension, for example, will receive a bonus equal to 45 per cent of such pension.

Furthermore, the attendant’s allowances granted to certain disabled war pensioners will be increased by 20 per cent.

These concessions will cost R300,000.

I have also great sympathy with the position of—

Civil Pensioners

I propose that civil pensions should be so adjusted as to ensure to every married White pensioner a minimum income of R54 per month, and to every unmarried White pensioner a minimum income of R27 per month. Details of this concession are set out in the White Paper.

Similar supplementary allowances will be granted to railway pensioners, but the Railways Administration will bear the cost of these allowances only for male pensioners under 65 years and female pensioners under 60 years of age; thereafter the cost will be borne by the Central Government.

These concessions will benefit those drawing very low pensions, but I feel that something should also be done for other groups of civil pensioners. Here it is necessary to bear in mind that pensioners who retired after 1958, and to a lesser extent those who retired after 1953, receive the benefit of the consolidation of public service salaries which took place in those years. The relief will therefore take the form of an allowance which will taper off gradually for those who retired after 1953. This will be additional to the allowance already granted, but subject to the same means test. For example, a married White pensioner who qualifies for the additional allowance may receive an additional RIO per month if he retired before 1 October 1953, but only R1 per month if he retired in 1961-2. Full details will be found in the White Paper.

The cost of all these concessions to civil pensioners will be R1,350,000.

I may add that it is the sincere hope of the Government that the Provincial Administrations will follow our example and extend similar relief to their pensioners, and especially the retired teachers. In terms of the existing financial arrangements, the Central Government will bear one-half of the cost.

All these concessions to social, military and civil pensioners will take effect from 1 April 1964.

Marginal Gold Mines

As mentioned in the discussion of the Loan Account, I propose to ask for a further sum of R600,000 on Revenue Account in order to continue the scheme for assisting certain gold mines with the pumping of water.

Including this R600,000 and the R5,100,000 required for concessions to pensioners, total expenditure on Revenue Account is accordingly estimated at R1,019,500,000. In order to determine how this expenditure is to be met, I must now deal with the—

Estimates of Revenue for 1964-5

I have assumed that the gross national product will continue to grow but—for reasons which I have explained earlier—at a slightly slower rate than in 1963. I have taken per cent per annum as a likely rate. This does not mean, of course, that all items of revenue can simply be increased by per cent. In the case of income-tax on individuals, for instance, allowance must be made for the progressive rates of tax, for delayed assessments of tax due in respect of previous years, and for over- and under-payments of tax under the P.A.Y.E. system during 1963-4 which will be adjusted during 1964-5.

Taking all these factors into consideration, I estimate the revenue for 1964-5 on the existing basis of taxation at R955,300,000, or R19,000,000 above the revised figure for 1963-4. Customs and excise receipts are expected to increase by R17,000,000 and Post Office receipts by R7,000,000, but inland revenue is estimated to decrease by R4,500,000 —mainly owing to the fact that assessments for arrear taxation in respect of the pre P.A.Y.E. period will naturally be much lower next year.

The surplus of R88,000,000 on revenue account for 1963-4, less the R16,000,000 to be transferred to Loan Account, must also be added to give a total of R1,027,300,000 available for 1964-5. This gives me a limited scope for manoeuvre.

I have already said that I do not consider that any general stimulation of demand is necessary or desirable at the present juncture. It will be better, in my view, to use the available funds selectively to grant relief in cases where this seems justified and to remove certain anomalies in our tax system.

My first proposal relates to—

Excise Duty on Yeast

This duty was never intended as a revenue measure but was used for control purposes to check the brewing of illicit liquor. I am assured by the police that this control is no longer necessary.

The administration of the duty, especially in respect of the rebates granted to bakeries, is also troublesome and expensive. I propose that it be abolished forthwith. The loss of revenue will be R450,000.

I have considered some means of encouraging home ownership for the small householder, and I think this can best be done by some reduction in—

Transfer Duty

This duty at present amounts to 3 per cent on the first R10,000 of the value of the property transferred and 4 per cent on the amount above R10,000. Although these rates are not high, they may still represent a substantial addition to the cash resources required by, for example, a young man setting up house for the first time. I therefore propose to grant a rebate on the existing duty, for properties up to R15,000, on the following basis:

For properties between R5,000 and R10,000—a rebate of one-half of the duty.

For properties between R10,000 and R15,000—a rebate of one-third of the duty.

These concessions will come into force immediately. The loss of revenue is estimated at R3,700,000 per annum.

I have a further proposal to make in connection with transfer duty. It is a source of gratification to the Government that so many foreign companies which previously operated in South Africa through branches of the parent concerns, should now be establishing South African subsidiary companies with their own boards of directors. This is a trend which I wish to encourage. Where a considerable amount of fixed property has to be transferred from the branch to the new subsidiary company, the transfer duty involved may be substantial and may even inhibit the change. I therefore propose to grant exemption from transfer duty, with immediate effect, in cases where all the assets in South Africa of a branch of a foreign company are taken over by a South African subsidiary of that foreign company. The annual cost to the Exchequer should normally not exceed R100,000.

Gold Mines

It will be remembered that last year I extended to all new gold mines the capital allowance of 5 per cent calculated on the unredeemed capital expenditure. It is important to the country that new gold mines should be established to take the place of those which will close down in due course, and in order to encourage their establishment I propose to increase the capital allowance from 5 per cent to 6 per cent for all gold mines started after 20 March 1963. There will be no loss of revenue in 1964-5.

Undistributed Profits Tax

The Undistributed Profits Tax is designed to give a strong inducement to private companies to distribute in dividends at least 30 per cent of their profits before tax. In other words, they may plough back up to 40 per cent of their income (other than dividends, and before deducting company income-tax) without becoming liable for the Undistributed Profits Tax. The average proportion ploughed back is considerably less than this, but circumstances may arise, especially at a time of rapid expansion such as the present, when a slightly higher proportion would be desirable. I propose, therefore, to alter the formula so as to permit a company to plough back 45 per cent of its income (other than dividends, and before deducting tax) without incurring liability for undistributed profits tax. The relief will be granted in respect of all assessments for a tax year ending during the calendar year 1964. The loss of revenue will be about R750,000.

Income Tax on Individuals

The present is not the appropriate time for any general reduction of income-tax, even if the budgetary position had made this possible. The 5 per cent discount on individual income-tax will, however, be continued. There is one further adjustment which I wish to propose. The present rates of income-tax on individuals rise rather steeply after the R4,600 mark. This is a relic of the old super-tax scale and, although the progression was smoothed out to some extent in 1960, I think some further adjustment is called for. I propose, therefore, to reduce the tax rates in the income brackets above R4,600 so that the rate rises more slowly than at present up to R6,000 (for a married person), and thereafter gradually approaches the existing rate again. Details of the proposal will be tabled, but the effect will be that a married man with an income of R5,000 will pay about per cent less tax than at present, one with an income of R6,000, 12 per cent less, and one with an income of R8,000, 3½ per cent less. The concession will apply with effect from the year of assessment ending on either 28 February or 30 June 1965, as the case may be. New P.A.Y.E. tax deduction tables will be issued in due course, and the loss of revenue in 1964-5 is estimated at R2,000,000.

Donations to Loan and Bursary Fund

Last year I pointed out that the concession granted to companies in respect of donations to universities was intended to meet an exceptional problem, namely, the provision of costly facilities in the vitally important field of technological training and research. I still do not think that any general extension of this concession is justified. In view of the shortage of trained manpower, however, I am prepared to make some concession to help solve this special problem. What is required here is not the provision of additional university facilities —which are generally adequate—but rather additional assistance to students who lack the means to continue their education. I propose, therefore, that companies be allowed to deduct from their taxable incomes, up to a maximum of 1 per cent of such incomes, any donations made to a national loan and bursary fund for students in need of assistance to complete their studies at a university, university college, technical or training college. Details of the scheme will be worked out in consultation with the Department of Education, Arts and Science. This concession, which will be additional to the existing concession for donations for technological training, will apply to the financial year of any company ending on or after to-day. The cost to the Exchequer is estimated at R500,000 for the year 1964-5.

Summary

So far as the Revenue Account is concerned, my Budget for 1964-5 may now be summarized as follows:

The estimated surplus at the close of the financial year is therefore R300,000.

In this Budget my problem was easy to define: to reconcile continued rapid growth with a high degree of financial stability. But it was not so easy to translate this precept into practice. It is true that the forces making for stability are substantial. The balance of payments is satisfactory, the reserves are relatively strong, the country is well stocked with goods, and the productive power of the economy has often in the past proved equal to the demands imposed upon it. On the other hand, there are warning signs of possible bottlenecks, especially in skilled labour, and particularly in the building trade.

The not inconsiderable surplus from the current year can therefore not be utilized for indiscriminate tax or other reliefs, but must be deployed cautiously in such a way as not to weaken materially the forces making for stability. But again there are certain categories of persons who do not share to the same extent in the current prosperity and are deserving of some relief. And there are also some anomalies in our tax system which require rectification.

In the end I devised a formula which attempts to take all these factors into consideration. Of the surplus of R88,000,000, I transferred R16,000,000 to the Loan Account, which has to bear the cost of prolonging the life of certain marginal gold mines as well as some relief from estate duty. The balance of R72,000,000 I carried forward to the Revenue Account for 1964-5 to be utilized as follows:

It is an indication of the inherent strength of our economy and the buoyancy of our revenue that we are able to finance next year’s share of the cost of the Orange River project (R 13,800,000), of a possible expenditure on the implementation of the Odendaal Commission Report on South West Africa (R20,000,000), additional provision for Defence (R52,000,000), a grant-in-aid to the new Government of the Transkei (R13,000,000), an additional R7,000,000 to the South African Native Trust, together with tax and other relief amounting to about R17,000,000. What is most heartening is that we can do all this and much more practically without resorting to new overseas borrowing, with little new money from internal loans and without levying any fresh taxation.

I think it is clear to all of us that but for the soundness and strength of our economy, we would have been hard put to maintain ourselves, to protect the integrity of our land and the independence of our people, against the openly expressed aggressive designs of certain States.

Our economy is one of the main bulwarks of our national survival. But its continued growth is also the condition for higher living standards for all sections of the population. It behoves us, therefore, to take every possible care to maintain the soundness and increase the strength of our economy in this troubled world. In pursuit of this high purpose, I shall spare no effort and if necessary shall not hesitate to take the required steps to protect this priceless possession of the Republic. I trust, nay, I feel sure, that in whatever steps may be necessary for this purpose, I will be able to rely on the ready co-operation of this House and of the people of South Africa.

I now lay upon the Table:

1. (1) Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue, Bantu Education and Loan Accounts during the year ending 31 March 1965;
2. (2) Estimates of Revenue to be received during the year ending 31 March 1965;
3. (3) White Paper in connection with Budget statement, 1964-5;
4. (4) Taxation Proposals;
5. (5) White Paper on concessions to social, civil and war pensioners;
6. (6) Comparative figures of Revenue for 1963-4 and 1964-5:

REVENUE 1963/64. R,000

We have listened to a very remarkable statement this afternoon. I think, possibly with one exception, it has been the most remarkable Budget statement to which I have ever listened. The hon. the Minister has confessed to having a surplus of some R88,000,000. Sir, if you take into account the way in which he blew up his Additional Estimates plus the fact that it is quite clear that his final revenue will be larger than he has stated to-day, one will not be far wrong, I think, in saying that he will have a surplus altogether of about R100,000,000. He told us this time last year that he was budgeting for a surplus of R100,000. So, in effect, the hon. the Minister has told us to-day that there has been a slight error in his calculations of about 1,000 per cent.

You would have loved it had it been the other way around.

The hon. the Minister to-day has changed his clothes for this year, in his usual Walter Mitty-like fashion: He is a fisherman this year. He tells us that he is now acting as a fisherman. I must say that when he talked about that everybody in the House looked up and expected him to land at least a tunny as large as that landed by the hon. the Prime Minister not so long ago. I cannot say, however, that the hon. the Minister has succeeded in doing that. In fact he is looking rather worried than pleased; he looks more like a man who has lost the biggest fish of the year. In fact, he reminds me of the man who has been putting coins in a slot machine for many years and who has suddenly hit the jackpot and the “one-armed bandit” (which in this case is apparently the Inland Revenue Department) has deposited a large fortune in his lap and stunned him; he does not really know what to do with it I have no doubt, Sir, that in the course of the next few days there will be plenty of people ready to give the hon. the Minister good advice as to what to do with the fortune that has fallen into his lap. I must say that the first impressions one got when listening to the hon. the Minister were, first of all, that he was still underestimating the final surplus with which he would close the year both in respect of Loan Account and Revenue Account; secondly, that he had not succeeded, in fact that he had failed, to take advantage of what seems to me to be a very great opportunity which good fortune and the taxpayers of this country had placed within his grasp.

In the comparatively short time which the hon. the Minister in his wisdom is allowing us to study his statement it will be our duty to examine it closely in order to commend what we feel to be right. There is no question about it that there are features in it that we shall support wholeheartedly. When we have examined his statement and the figures he has put before us we shall suggest to the House the manner in which we believe the present favourable financial position of the country should be exploited for the benefit of the people of the country. At this stage, Sir, I wish to move—

The Committee is dealing at the moment with Clause 25, a clause which defines the duties and functions of labour tenant control boards and of Bantu labour control boards. It is particularly in the latter context that I shall deal with this clause, that is to say, as far as it affects the Bantu labour control boards. This clause together with the regulations with which we shall deal at a later stage deals with the manner in which the Bantu labour control board is to carry out an inquiry into and order a reduction of the Bantu labour force at the instance of a farm inspector, i.e. of a Bantu labour officer. It is quite clear from the existing provisions of the Trust and Land Act that this power of an investigation and this power to order a reduction in the number of the employees of a farmer or an individual is not required to get rid of excess Bantu living or residing on the land of the farmer or of the individual. Those people who are in excess of the requirements of the individual concerned are squatters. They are defined in the existing legislation as those Bantu who are neither labour tenants nor servants. Those Bantu fall into the category of squatters and they can be dealt with under Section 33 of the Trust and Land Act as it stands to-day.

We have the position where in terms of this clause, the what one might call the bogus Bantu employee, the Bantu who is residing on land but not properly employed, can be dealt with under existing legislation, i.e. the legislation dealing with squatters. One wonders why it is necessary to create a labour control board with the powers which are referred to in this clause and which will be elaborated upon when we come to the clause dealing with regulations. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us an indication of what is intended in that regard when he replies to the questions raised under this clause. I repeat what I said previously, namely, that the only conclusion to which one can come, in the absence of an explanation, is that it is to use it as an instrument to carry out Government policy. We have already heard what results will flow if it is to be used for that purpose.

One is concerned about this clause not merely because of what appears in it but because of what will be dealt with later on in this Bill. I do not propose to go into that at this stage, but we are concerned about this clause because of what appears in Clause 35 where the powers and the functions of these boards are increased, which adds to those factors an additional factor namely the availability of labour other than Bantu labour. That is however not a matter which I can discuss now. There is another difficulty which arises from the powers given in this clause and that is the position which will arise in the farming community when, a determination having been made as to the number of employees a farmer can have on his land, he requires a large-scale increase in his farm labour on a temporary basis due to seasonal fluctuations. Take harvesting time on those farms where cotton is grown and where a great number of temporary labourers, usually women, are employed. They have to reside on the farmer’s land during the week if not over the week-end. In that type of case this is purely a seasonal increase in the amount of labour the farmer requires but it might double or even treble the supply of labour which is normally resident on that farm and which is normally required in order to keep the farming operations going. A determination having been made in respect of that farm, how is that farmer to cope, short of going back to the board, prior to the harvesting season, getting a redetermination for a temporary period and then falling back to the original determination?

Surely he can ask for a determination for such an event.

Cotton is a yearly crop, Sir. It is very much dependent upon the weather and a farmer’s requirements in that regard will vary greatly and very considerably from year to year if not from month to month. Let us have some indication as to what is to take place here. Are we to have the Bantu labour control board sitting and making determinations on a monthly basis? Or is it to be half-yearly? Or is it to be on a yearly basis? The hon. the Deputy Minister must tell us how this is going to work because unless some indication is given I foresee very great difficulties coming up as far as those farmers are concerned who have tremendous seasonal fluctuations in the number of Bantu labourers they have to employ. There are so many variable factors, the weather being not the least of them. It will be interesting to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister, in his reply, how this is going to work.

When you look at sub-section (3) (b) on page 37 you see that—

That applies only in respect of a labour tenants control board. One wonders why the same thing should not apply to a Bantu labour control board if there is to be some alleviation of the position in the case of the farmer who has vast seasonal increases and changes in his labour supply. These are some of the difficulties which seem to arise out of this clause as far as the duties and functions of Bantu labour control boards are concerned. [Time limit.]

I should like to move an amendment. I regret that owing to circumstances this amendment could not be prepared in time to be printed on the Order Paper for the information of the hon. members. It is a very simple amendment—

I move this amendment to bring these two sub-sections into line with other sub-sections of this clause. The words “labour control board” should really not have been omitted. Thereby I think I shall also be dispelling certain doubts voiced in connection with the regulation aspect of sub-section (4) and the previous sub-section we have already disposed of. I think it will now be quite clear to hon. members that the squatter tenants control board and/or the Bantu labour control board can fulfil these functions in terms of the regulation applicable to one or other of these bodies.

While I am on my feet I should just like to refer to a few other aspects. The other day hon. members also referred to the difference in the treatment of Bantu labourers on farms who do agricultural work and others who do work which cannot be described as agricultural work, in other words those who are not bona fide farm workers. One hon. member mentioned the example of sawmills, and another hon. member mentioned the example of a slate quarry. Bantu who do that work are of course not agricultural labourers. They do not fall under the determination of the labour control board; they are really a type of industrial worker and that brings them in line with the position of the ordinary Bantu workers in industry. Industries are usually established in the urban areas. There other measures exist indirectly by means of which the presence of Bantu can be controlled. Let me mention the most obvious example, namely housing conditions. We know that in terms of the Urban Areas Act the setting aside of residential areas is very effective. It may be said that if a person employs so many Bantu in his industry, they should live in certain areas set aside for the purpose, separate residential areas or compounds or hostels. As hon. members will remember, last year we introduced legislation dealing even with the accommodation of domestic servants. We said that if a person had three or four domestic servants they could not all live on the premises; only one could live on the premises and the rest would have to live in the urban Bantu residential area, as soon as that Act was implemented. In an indirect manner that affords a measure of control over the presence of Bantu there. But on the farms that sort of control is impracticable because we cannot provide residential areas on all the farms. The Bantu who work there live on the farm. Therefore this method was evolved to apply control on the farms in terms of the labour itself. The labour which has been approved then lives there. It is a shifting of emphasis in regard to the control which is required there.

In a later clause, which I cannot discuss now, the question of too many Bantu on farms is dealt with. That is the new Section 38quin which is proposed. I think that also answers the objection of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), who asked the other day why domestic servants should also be taken into consideration and why a determination can be made in their case also. It ought to be clear that in the case of domestic servants irregularities may take place on a farm. The farmer may say: “It is only a coincidence that you see him here in the house looking after the children; he is really an agricultural worker.” I do not want to dilate on such examples, but such irregularities may take place, and therefore we felt that these provisions should include the phrase “taking into consideration the number of domestic servants there”. I think what I have just said is also the reply to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman), who asked why a labour control board should be established. I have explained that in urban areas industrial workers have to live in a separate residential area, but that this is not possible on farms.

I am particularly concerned about this clause in regard to the responsibility that must arise in sub-section (3). The Minister may decree that there must be a reduction in the number of labour tenants on the farm. The Minister may terminate the contracts completely. In terms of Clause 31 which I cannot discuss now he can reduce the duration of that contract to three years after which it must terminate. I wish to direct the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that enormous numbers of Natives are going to be displaced from those properties, both legal and illegal labour tenants and both legal and illegal squatters. Will the Minister give me some idea of the responsibility the Government is going to undertake towards the absorption of those Natives into some kind of employment or perhaps in camps until such time as they can be placed in suitable employment? It is most important to the safe conduct of this legislation that the Minister makes the necessary provision for such accommodation. I would like to know from the Minister what responsibility the Government is going to take for accommodating these displaced Natives which are now to be moved from the farms on which they have lived as labour tenants and squatters.

Sir, this is a very far-reaching clause indeed. To my mind this clause has very bad provisions indeed. In line 47 on page 35 I read for instance “or if it is requested in writing by an owner of land in such area or by a labour liaison officer … an investigation into the number of labour tenants or Bantu employees …” shall be made on that particular farm. In terms of sub-section (3) an investigation may be made in regard to labour tenants or Bantu employees, because it deals with both, even if the owner does not so appear. They may hold an inquiry or make a determination in his absence. It makes no provision for the case where the owner does not appear because he cannot appear for any reason. The owner, or the farmer, may be in hospital or he may not have received the notice because the notice has to be in writing. It may happen that the notice gets lost in the post and the farmer does not receive it. He will therefore be unaware of the investigation that is to take place. In that case the investigation can still take place.

What also disturbs me is the fact that at the request of one owner of land an investigation can be made. The position used to be that five persons had to make such a request. It has now been changed to one owner or to a labour liaison officer. This opens the door wide to abuse. A farmer may be jealous of his neighbour and he may ask for an investigation. The other farmer will have to go to the trouble of appearing or of not appearing depending on whether he had received the notice or not. This once again gives the Minister and the officials working under him complete power because after they have held this inquiry they can make any determination or issue any order in respect of that land and that need not be for the first time. This can be a recurring event, as the hon. member for Zululand has pointed out. Sub-section (7) reads—

I get the impression that the people who have drawn up this Bill, including the hon. Deputy Minister, really know nothing about farming operations. The hon. member for Zululand put the case of a cotton farmer who occasionally has to go and pick cotton and who then needs large numbers of Bantu labourers, or labourers of some kind, to pick that cotton. Now this owner of land cannot tell to the day when his cotton will be ready to be picked. That depends on what the climate is like, what the weather is like, whether rain falls, etc. But what in regard to the reaping of mealies? What in regard to the farmer who usually does not use hand labour to clean his mealie lands? The position may arise where as a result of too much rain he cannot get into his lands with his machinery and the only way of doing it is to use hand labour for cleaning up the mealie lands, and then he has to use large numbers of people, and he will not have time to put in an application. I am thinking at the present moment of a case in Tulbagh where there are also seasonal labourers. Most of the prunes that are grown in South Africa are grown in that particular area, and this particular farmer put in an application for 12 extra persons to help him when the prunes had to be picked. He was told that these people would be supplied. He put in an application a very long time ahead of the time when he would require them and he deposited the necessary amount, I believe R7.50 per person. When the time came they could not supply these people to him, and he was told to deposit a further sum of money. In the end he got four labourers that he could use, with the result that instead of picking four tons of prunes a day he was only able to pick two tons of prunes a day. Mr. Chairman, will you tell me how people can tell to a date when they will need certain people? How can they forecast when it is going to rain, or when a drought is going to hit them? Because it may be too dry also to get the machinery into the land, and he may have to wait until it rains and then to use hand labour. This Government is taking complete control under these clauses of the economy of the White farmer in South Africa. And it is not the Minister of Agriculture who is taking these powers, but the Minister of Bantu Administration. At the behest of a Minister such as this these things will be regulated and from that the prosperity of the farmer in this country will depend.

There is no darkness but ignorance.

The hon. member is quite right, this is indeed a day of darkness for South Africa, a day of regimentation, a day when everybody is to be told what to do, and a day on which this Government makes provision in clauses of this nature not only to control the Bantu’s lot in this country but also to control the White man’s lot.

I did not know that I had to give an explanation here in connection with what is called the seasonal workers, because actually that is covered by the regulation-making powers we will discuss when Clause 35 (c) comes to be debated. But in order to prevent unnecessary scaremongering in connection with this matter, I should just like to point out that this matter is covered by Clause 35. There hon. members will find in paragraph (c), or the new paragraph (u), what the procedure is that has to be followed in regard to the appointment and the proceedings of the labour tenants control boards and Bantu labour control boards, the powers, functions and duties of such boards, the principles to be followed or the matters to be considered (which may include the availability of labour other than Bantu labour) by such boards when granting consent for registration. There the regulation-making powers are expressly provided, and in terms of those regulations we shall be able to provide that a labour control board, when making determinations, should do so according to specific procedures and principles. It is the intention, for example, to say that when the labour control board makes its determination in regard to labour, it can at the same time, if in the meantime an additional need arises for seasonal workers, for temporary workers for a month or a few weeks, say what should be done to obtain these additional workers, and for that we have the district and regional labour bureaux which will be able to give assistance. Therefore the regulation-making powers completely dispose of those doubts, because in this way provision can be made and the hon. member for Drakensberg can sleep peacefully in so far as this matter is concerned. It is not our intention at all to disrupt the economy of the agricultural community. Far be it from us to do that. But I do want to point to one thing which has not yet been sufficiently emphasized, namely that the determinations will be made by the Bantu labour control board.

And who are the members of this board? It consists of farmers. Three farmers will serve on it and the chairman, who is a departmental official, has no vote in ordinary procedural matters. He has only a deciding vote in the event of a dispute arising. In other words, it is in the hands of the farmers themselves to make those determinations, and if the hon. member thinks that we in the Department know nothing at all about what happens on farms I want to tell her that she is missing the ball completely, and I further want to ask her whether the farmers will not know enough about their own vicinity and the requirements of the farmers in their vicinity?

I am afraid the hon. Deputy Minister has not satisfied us at all. In fact he has us more worried than ever before. The hon. Deputy Minister admits that all the hon. member for Drakensberg fears may happen, but he says “Do not be worried; by regulations which are published I can tell the boards how to act”. He says that he can place restrictions on them and he can decide what labour is required. He can tell them what procedure is to be followed. That can all be done by regulation, and you must trust me, the Minister, to do the best for the farmers. Then he goes further and says that we must not worry because on the board there will be farmer representatives. But who will appoint those farmers? Those members will not be elected by the farmers in the area. They will probably be political appointments, appointed by this Minister. Sir, it has been the complaint of all sides of the House that the rent boards do not act as efficiently as they should because the best members do not sit on those boards. The same thing will apply here. It is quite wrong for the hon. Minister to ask us to pass an Act giving these boards powers which are contained in these clauses, and at the same time to say “I will restrict their actions by regulation”. We cannot just rely on regulations. When we pass this Act we must know what powers are going to be given to these boards, and how they are going to apply those powers. I am particularly worried after the speech made by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) last week who in justification of this measure said that certain farmers had no labour at all whereas other farmers had more labour than they require, and that therefore we must have a measure of this kind to regulate the supply of labour. Now there is some reason why one farmer has got no labour and the other farmer has more labour than he requires. There is some reason for that, and I can see in this clause how a farmer who has no labour is going to harass a farmer who has all the labour he requires. Because if you read the clause you find that the labour tenant board or the Bantu labour board must call upon the farmer to account for his labour if it receives a request in writing by an owner of land in the area. Any owner of land in that area can write to the board, complaining that his neighbour has too much labour and then the board must (it is given no option) require this farmer who has all the labour to come and appear before it and to account for his labour. It is then for that board to decide whether that particular farmer has too much labour. I can just imagine what will happen if the members of the board are in the same position as the farmer who lays the complaint and if they also have not enough labour and they see how their neighbours who treat their Natives decently have all the labour they require. The members of the board will then decide whether a certain farmer has too much labour, and if they so decide, he must get rid of that labour. And where is that labour to go to? Those farmers who lay the charge will hope that that labour will have to go to them, otherwise it may have to go back to the reserves. Sir, this clause is one of the most dangerous in this Bill and we shall certainly oppose it.

Before I come to this illogical and insignificant argument of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), I just want to deal with the questions of the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren), which he had already asked before and to which the hon. the Deputy Minister has already replied. His main question was what the responsibility of the Minister was in regard to the so-called or alleged surplus of Bantu labour. The Minister dealt with that a few days ago and it links up with the story which the hon. member is now telling again, namely that there will be a surplus in the one case and a shortage in the other. The Deputy Minister pointed out that the Bantu about whom the hon. member is now concerned will be able to be absorbed on the farms where the labour is required, or they can go elsewhere.

Why is there a shortage of labour on one farm and not on another?

Just listen to that stupid interjection. It is as the very result of this control that one will be able to dispose of the surplus labourers and to place them where they are required, through the control boards. Cannot the hon. member understand that? But what is the actual plea of the hon. member for Drakensberg? She is not concerned with whether the available labour will be placed where it is needed, through the proper channels. No, she pleads only for those who want to have surplus labour, where they need only press a button in the event of their needing labour for a month or even less than a month. But what happens to that Bantu labour during the rest of the year does not concern her at all. She is not concerned whether for the rest of the year they will be unemployed and go hungry and deteriorate. She is concerned about the type of farmer, and it is a very peculiar type of farmer (if there are such people) who always has superfluous labour on his farm who can be employed to-morrow if rain falls tonight; then they need only press a button and the labour must be there. Sir, when one considers the interests of these people as a whole one cannot advocate something like this. We cannot take into account just one specific type of human interest alone. Labour must be properly distributed, also in the interests of that labour itself. But that is not what the hon. member for Drakensberg wants. She does not want there to be any wise and reasonable distribution of labour. She wants certain people to have the right to press a button at any time and expect a surplus of labour to be available to them. That is just what will cause suspicion and jealousy and dissatisfaction, if one farmer sees that he has no labour, whereas another has a surplus of labour on his farm which he uses only when he suddenly has work for them. The hon. member has said that this is a terrible clause. Let them attack it. I challenge the hon. member who has attacked this clause to go to the rural areas, to any farming community, and to justify the attitude adopted to-day by the Opposition.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories hit the nail on the head. In the first instance, the hon. member for Krugersdorp talks about surplus labour, but who is going to decide who has got the surplus labour? That is the first thing. The man who is such a bad employer that Bantu do not want to work for him is going to make a complaint against the man who has got as much labour as he wants. He goes and complains against the man who has in his opinion surplus labour, and if the Government’s friends are all to be on these boards, they will say “Yes, you have got surplus labour there”. And what is going to happen? That person is going to have labour taken away from him because he is a good master who pays his men well and who houses them properly, and therefore he has as much labour as he requires. But the board is going to come along and say to him: You have got a surplus there, and you have got to give some of that labour to someone else who cannot keep labour because he is a bad employer. It is a most unfair thing from that point of view. That is the whole point. It can be the biggest wangle that has ever taken place, and this is a very dangerous clause. If it goes through, who is going to have any right at all? In other words, if you are not popular with the other employers there, you are going to be imposed upon, and you are going to be forced to give up labour which you really require.

The hon. member for Green Point has severely criticized these boards which will be appointed. But this is a board consisting of farmers. The hon. member has expressed a great lack of confidence in the farmers. Hon. members opposite have gone even farther and said that the boards would now consist of Nationalists only and that the United Party supporters would be left without labour. What a ridiculous argument! I cannot see intelligent farmers making a determination without taking all the factors into consideration, and giving such stupid decisions as hon. members here wish to intimate. This is just a smokescreen. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories talked about the powers to make regulations. That is not really relevant to this clause; it is only relevant under Clause 35. There the powers to make regulations are clearly defined and no Minister may exceed them. It even mentions the “availability of labour”, and therefore the regulations will have to bear in mind what labour is available. Therefore that argument of his also falls away. This particular clause refers to the board and not to the labour bureau. The hon. member for Drakensberg seems to think that it is this board which will have to supply the labour. That is nonsensical. The board has only one duty, and that is to determine how many labour tenants there will be and how many labourers should be allowed on a farm. It is not for that board to say: “Give the prune-grower in Tulbagh the labour which we found on the other farm.” The labour bureau must make the labour available. This whole argument of the hon. member for Drakensberg is wrong.

I cannot allow the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) to get away with that. If he has replied on behalf of the Minister, then I am disappointed. He seems to confirm the idea that was expressed by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) who said that this would bring about an automatic adjustment of labour, that labour would be taken from one farm or expelled from one farm under the Act, and that that labour would be naturally absorbed by people who could not get labour. If it were as easy as all that, we would not be putting this legislation through the House this afternoon. I want to tell the hon. member for Krugersdorp that he does not know what is going on on farms. There are literally thousands and thousands of illegal labour tenants and illegal squatters on farms.

Do you want that to continue?

No. I want the position handled, but if you are going to bring in these boards to handle the position, what is going to happen to that expelled labour. You will not bring about an automatic adjustment. That labour will not automatically be absorbed on farms. The Government has got to assume some responsibility for it. They have got to accommodate such labour in camps, or in another way. What is the Government prepared to do, because if this is accepted it is going to bring about a situation which is going to be extremely dangerous. What contribution is the Government going to make towards dealing with this matter when it arises? The hon. member for Krugersdorp knows nothing about it. Let the Deputy Minister admit that something has to be done and that he is going to assume his reasonable responsibility for the accommodation of those Natives then we know where we stand.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, I am well acquainted with the circumstances of the hon. member for King William’s Town and the conditions in the area in which he farms. The hon. member for King William’s Town objects to the thousands of superfluous Bantu on the farms. Where do those who are in his specific area come from? They come from the Ciskei and from the Transkei. The same applies to the Northern Cape area. We have these superfluous Bantu on the farms. They come from the Transkei and from the Ciskei. They simply stay there. Many farmers on the farms do not even know that they are there, and so it goes on.

I should like to object strongly to what the hon. member for Drakensberg has said. She said here that almost all the farmers in South Africa have superfluous Bantu on their farms. That does not apply to all farmers. It is only a very small percentage of our White farmers who keep superfluous Bantu on their farms. We have made use of migratory labour for all these years and we still do so to-day, such as, e.g. sheep-shearers, as well as seasonal workers who come and go. Why should that type of worker be kept on the farms year in and year out? The hon. member for King William’s Town asked what would become of these Bantu? They will return whence they came and we will not tolerate them on the White farms in South Africa any longer. But the hon. members opposite now want to intimate that we are discriminating against the Bantu because we now want to chase them out of the White areas where they do not belong.

I do not think that it is necessary to pursue the question of the squatter or the illegal farm-labour tenant, because the surplus of these people is provided for under other clauses of this Bill. Here we have a simple concept. It is in respect of the ordinary farmer in respect of whom a complaint is made that he has too much labour. The labour may be other than farm-tenant labour, or it may be farm-tenant labour or a combination of both. But in the aggregate this clause provides that if it is reported that there is too much labour, then certain machinery is set into motion. So far as the superfluity of farm-tenant labour is concerned, it is already dealt with in a clause which we have passed, Clause 22. There the Minister has got full powers to deal adequately with that form of labour, and when we were debating that clause we pointed out that when we would come to this clause we would find that it was unnecessary to have the provisions in this clause because Clause 22 deals adequately with that type of labour. As I said on a previous occasion, I have yet to find the farmer who keeps a lot of surplus labour on his farm, employed for 12 months in the year, and paying those Natives when he does not need them.

That is a childish argument.

We are dealing with Bantu labour, but it does not matter whether it is Bantu labour or Coloured labour or White labour. No farmer keeps paid labour on his farm full-time when he is not employing that labour and does not want it. What we are concerned with here is the labour that an ordinary farmer carrying on his ordinary farming avocation may require from time to time, and the point has been made by the hon. member for Drakensberg that you have seasonal labour, and she has given an example of where seasonal labour was required and the present machinery failed completely to provide that labour. You see, Mr. Chairman,

I want to raise this point at once, that this clause strikes at the root of the whole basis of what we believe should be the fundamental relationship between your Black labour and your White employer and that is that the labourer freely offers his service to the White employer, and if that employer is satisfied he takes that labour. We believe that to be fundamental: A free offer of labour by the labourer and the free acceptance by the employer. What is wrong with that principle? If once the Government breaks that principle and establishes a new principle in regard to Bantu labour, where is it going to stop?

The hon. member for Drakensberg spoke differently.

No, if the hon. member will listen a bit more carefully to what the hon. member for Drakensberg says, he will learn a lot. Because when once that principle is broken, then you reach the stage of the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) and speeches made this afternoon—I think the hon. member for Heilbron made the same speech just now: That you take the surplus labour from here, through the machinery established, from the farmer who has a surplus, determined in such and such a manner, and you give it to the farmer who is short.

I never said so.

I think the hon. member said that it went through the labour bureaux. Very well, I will come back to that presently. I did not suggest that you will come along with a bucket and pick it up and take it from one farm to the other. I said “through the machinery established in this Bill”. The position then is that if that concept is accepted as the dominating factor in the policy which the Government is adopting, then you are going to completely ruin the whole concept of a labourer freely offering his labour to an employer who freely accepts it. That is basic. So we are in the position that with a huge organization, now added to by means of these Bantu labour control boards as well as the tenant-labour control boards, dealing with this mass of Bantu labour, up to some 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 Bantu altogether, who come within the ambit of this particular Bill, once it is being applied, everything is under Government control. The ordinary farmer who uses seasonal labour will naturally be in a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis a farmer who uses his labour, a limited number of labourers, right through the whole year. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) will get his Bantu labour through the bureau. That is the basis of this principle, and we are utterly opposed to it on the grounds of basic morality and principle, quite apart from the deleterious effect it will have on our farming operations.

A personal attack has been made on me here in regard to my Bantu labourers. I have Bantu on my farm who grew up there, but there are some people in Natal who are “Kaffir farmers”. They just want to have cheap labour and do not want to allow those Bantu to live a decent life. That is where the Minister wants to intervene, to deal with these superfluous Bantu who cause so much trouble to the farmers in the vicinity. They slaughter the cattle and the sheep, and the Government now says that those superfluous Bantu must be employed properly. There are certain farmers who want to keep these Bantu there just to have cheap labour, and we feel that they are not being fair towards the Bantu. Hon. members opposite pretend that they are well disposed towards the Bantu and intimate that we are not, but they can come to my farm and see how I treat my labourers.

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) evidently does not know what this is about. He talks about people who farm with Kaffirs. Let me first of all tell the hon. member that there is no such thing as a “Kaffir”; he is a Bantu. The closest I can come to using that word is to call the hon. member ’n “Kafferboetie”. But what farmer is going to keep more labour on his farm than is necessary? Only a person like the hon. member for Cradock, and I saw his farm last week. It is no use talking about exploiting Bantu labour. It is all rubbish. At present Bantu labour is allowed to move where it wants to go, and it is not controlled in any way, and if the farm tenant does not like the man with whom he lives he gives three months’ notice and moves immediately, leaving only one person in the service of that farmer, and he goes where he likes. So what is all this talk about cheap Native labour about? The Minister was very quiet about this particular point that if one landowner puts in a request then an inspection must be made and an inquiry must be held.

But he may be proved wrong.

What is all this nonsense about? [Interjection.] A man like the hon. member for Cradock might constantly put in such application, because he cannot shut up even here. This is most interesting. In his reply to me the hon. the Deputy Minister said that this labour tenants control board will be able to allocate the number of farm labourers to a farmer and will take into consideration seasonal labour, but the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) does not seem to know what he is talking about. He jumps up and says I do not know what I am talking about because the labour bureaux will handle the seasonal labour. Who is right now, the hon. the Minister or the hon. member for Heilbron, who has such a lot to say, or the hon. member for Cradock, who talks about Kaffir farming? The worst is that the hon. member for Cradock might be on that board because I believe he is the chairman of the farmers’ group of the Government Party. [Interjection.] If the hon. member would read the clause he would know what it is about. The Minister has not given us a reply to our questions on this clause, and here I think the hon. member for Heilbron was right and the hon. the Minister was wrong. I believe that the farmer will not be able to go to the labour tenants control board to ask for seasonal labour, but will have to go to the labour bureau.

He does not ask for that. He asks for a determination. Can you not appreciate the difference?

That hon. member does not know what he is talking about. The position is that in terms of this clause farming can be made impossible. These are unnecessary restrictions on our farming community. Where there has been a good relationship between the farmer and the employee, and where in the past the employees had the greatest freedom of movement and could move from one farm to another if they did not like the farmer with whom they stayed, this will bring about exactly the opposite position. Now the poor labourer will have to stay with a farmer who is treating him badly. If he does not, he will be sent back to the Native reserves. Here the farmer is put at the mercy of people who do not look after their own farms and have nothing to do but to pry into the business of their neighbours, trying to find out whether they have not got one labourer too many. Then they go to lay complaints and call in the liaison officer, and I am most intrigued to know where the Minister is going to find all the liaison officers who will be necessary to run all these labour bureaux. Complete power is put into the hands of the Minister. He can terminate existing contracts and through the control board he can determine the number of labour tenants, and he can make it impossible for a farmer to remain on his land.

Order! I want to warn hon. members that they must now advance new arguments.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) tried to create the impression that the relation between the farmer and his employee is an ideal one here in South Africa and that there is no such thing as a man having too much labour or even having idle Bantu on his farm. [Interjection.] I want to tell the hon. member immediately that she need not think that if a farmer employs 12 Bantu there will be only 12 on his farm—and then the rest are not even labour tenants. There may be quite a number of other Bantu also, and as the position is to-day nobody can do anything about it. They remain there as long as the farmers allow them to. That hon. member who now pretends to know everything in regard to Bantu workers is not the only one who has experience of it. There are many farmers on this side who also have experience. It is nonsensical for hon. members opposite to say that we are in favour of this clause because we cannot keep our workers, and therefore we want this control. [Interjections.] Allow me to complete my statement. What we need is control in these cases where there are abuses. I think we all agree about that.

Now I just want to say this for the information of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). He says that in Clause 22 we dealt fully with labour tenants. That is quite correct; we did deal with them. Therefore the Minister can now declare that there may no longer be any labour tenants in an area which has been declared to be free of them, but the hon. member should remember that it is a lengthy process, and we will still have labour tenants for many years. As I know the hon. member, he is also someone who wants to see the evil of labour tenants eliminated. But I do not wish to deal with that now. What I want to say is that with the labour tenant system which may still exist for many years and with a system where any person can freely employ labourers, it is unfortunately a fact that we must admit that cases do exist where labour is kept on farms which constitutes a nuisance and causes harm to neighbouring farmers, and I challenge any hon. member opposite to deny that he is aware of this sort of thing, because if he says he does not know about it I can only accept that he knows nothing about our whole system of labour in South Africa.

I just want to refer to something else. The hon. member for Drakensberg has said that people who want to prosecute others and to report that there is superfluous labour on a farm will cause the poor Bantu to be sent away to the Bantu areas. On the other hand, the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) has just the opposite difficulty. He agrees with me that superfluous labour does exist, but his difficulty is that he does not know what is to become of it. He wants to have control, and I do not blame him because his experience is similar to ours, that control is indeed necessary. But his difficulty is that we will be landed with a lot of superfluous labour for whom there is no work and he does not know what will happen to them. But the hon. member for Drakensberg says they will all be sent back to Bantu areas. I think if the two of them discuss the matter with each other, they may be able to reach agreement as to whether there is a superfluity or a shortage of labour.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Drakensberg this. She objected to the hon. member for Cradock talking about “Kaffir farmers”. She said there was no such thing. I think she is quite correct. We have sot away from the stage of talking about “Kaffirs”, but I just want to say that if she objects to “Kaffir farmers” she should also stop her stories about “Kafferboeties” which she so dearly likes to tell on the platteland. I just want to say that the S.A. Agricultural Union did not ask that the system of labour tenants should eventually disappear completely without having good reason for doing so.

Why do you say “eventually”?

Because it is a gradual process. It is not a process which will come into operation immediately this Act is passed, but adaptations will have to be made and in the course of time the labour tenants will dwindle and the system will completely disappear. The S.A. Agricultural Union is just as aware as we on this side of the House, who have no political motives, that there should be control in certain respects, and not only control by the Department of Bantu Administration, but control by farmers in the area who know the conditions in that area and who know how much labour is required, and who will not set to work recklessly to deprive people of their labour.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 27,

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister for some information on this clause. In sub-section (2) provision is made for the continuation of the licence, and to increase it. Now, that has been in force for many years. Is it still necessary to have it? How does the country stand to-day after the many years this has been in operation? Is not every registered squatter already paying a licence fee of R32? If that is to continue, I want to ask the Minister whether he now intends to include the Government itself in regard to the Bantu on the Government-controlled properties? We have the Forest Department, which is a major offender in this respect, in that they employ bona fide labour but also allow hundreds and hundreds of squatters to live on their land. Then there is also State-owned land controlled by the divisional councils. I think the Minister must know that many of the divisional councils have allowed up to 400 or 450 squatters to live on that land. What does he intend to do about it? Will those Bantu be registered as squatters? Will the Government undertake the responsibility either of removing them or else registering them? Another important factor is that you have mission lands sandwiched in between farmers who are carrying on bona fide farming operations. That has become what you might call squatter country. These lands were originally designed for the building of a church, etc., and particularly in the border area there are as many as 200 of these illegal squatters on such land, and I want to ask the Minister what he intends doing about them.

I particularly want to know what the Minister is going to do in regard to land controlled by the divisional councils, the Railways and the Forestry Department, who at present are accommodating literally thousands of squatters. Finally, will the Minister please tell me whether it is necessary for a re-registration to take place where they start at R2 and go up to R32? We have been under the impression that this evil would no longer be allowed.

The position in connection with re-registration according to the tariffs laid down in this Bill is that it is not necessary to start with it afresh; this is an existing system which is being proceeded with while there are still squatters. The position is not that all those who are already registered will have to register again. But once the period of registration expires, then a new registration has to be applied for. The hon. member must remember that the table which is given here is not something new that we are introducing; it is simply a continuation of the existing position.

The hon. member has also asked me to what extent these provisions in connection with squatters and their control are applicable to State-owned land. They are applicable to divisional council land but not to State-owned land. The position in connection with the State, of course, is that one Government Department must take into consideration the principles of the State as observed by another Government Department.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 29,

We have a considerable amount of difficulty with this clause. Here we find that in sub-section (1) of the new Section 35 provision is made for the Bantu Affairs Commissioner, or the chairman of the labour tenants control board, or the Bantu labour control board, or the chairman of the divisional council, to do certain things. Here it is perfectly clear that we have the four authorities who are either constituted as control boards, or in the Cape of Good Hope they are divisional councils, or in their absence a Bantu Affairs Commissioner. Under this section therefore I think it is fair to say that control in respect of the matters referred to in this section is over the whole of the Republic outside of prescribed areas. Outside of prescribed areas, on the passing of this Bill, this clause becomes absolute in its control in respect of the matters provided for here. The hon. the Deputy Minister has told us that it is his intention to establish Bantu labour control boards in certain areas where to-day you only have Bantu Affairs Commissioners, but that is progressive and it is not what is before us at the moment. What is here then is this complete coverage, and notwithstanding the powers of these four authorities—I will refer to them as the “four authorities”—to have an investigation entirely on their own responsibility, acting on information which has come to them from whatever source it may be, or as the result of information conveyed to them under the clause which we passed a few moments ago, Clause 25, where the matter can be reported by one owner of any land or by a labour liaison officer—in spite of all that, in this particular clause the Minister now takes the authority to give instructions to one or other of these four authorities and thereupon they shall require an owner or any person in the service or acting for the owner to render such a return and to give particulars and so forth, and then in fact virtually an investigation takes place. Again we say that if the power has been conferred upon the four authorities concerned to exercise their own discretion in holding an investigation and to call for this information, which I think is more or less what can already be called for under the existing law, and if upon a complaint being made to them they can hold an investigation, then, Sir, why does the Minister find it necessary to come and superimpose his power of direction in respect of this particular matter? From whence does he get his information? Here you have farmers living happily together; nobody is quarreling about his labour supply; the whole scene is quite happy, everybody is contented; now a liaison officer appointed in terms of this Act comes along and makes a report to one of the authorities to say that there is surplus labour anywhere, and into that happy scene the Minister now comes and he says to the authority controlling the position in that particular area, “You must now hold an inquiry; I direct you to do it”, and then forthwith they have to do it whether they like it or not. Sir, we would like the Deputy Minister to tell us why he seeks that particular authority. Why does he not leave it to these particular people. What becomes of the whole of the story and the argument that we have been hearing in discussing the preceding clause that these are farmers themselves who will know what the position is; that they are not going to act unreasonably? What happens to that argument now? The whole of that argument that we have heard up to now simply falls to the ground shattered in pieces, because whatever the farmers think of each other and whether they are satisfied or not, the Minister can now direct that board or Bantu Affairs Commissioner to hold an inquiry.

Of whom does the board consist?

The Bantu labour control board and the labour tenants control board are constituted of three farmers with the Bantu Affairs Commissioner as chairman. But under this clause they are entirely bereft of their powers to take the initial steps in regard to investigating the labour supply on any particular farm.

But they must investigate.

They have the power to investigate, and in the preceding clause they are given that authority and they are told what they can do. But here they have to do what the Minister tells them, even if they are satisfied in their own minds that it is not necessary. It does not matter how satisfied they are. That is why I say that the argument of hon. members opposite simply falls to the ground, because the whole concept of farmers knowing what their brother farmers will require in the way of labour and that sort of thing goes by the board because the Minister can now take arbitrary action without reference to anybody.

In addition to this there is the point that I should like to put to the Minister for information. In sub-section (2) reference is made again to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner the chairman of the labour tenants or Bantu control board or the chairman of the divisional council in the Cape, as the case may be. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will tell us whether it is his intention that the chairmen of the divisional councils in the Cape shall gradually fall away. We are finding it a little difficult, as we go forward clause by clause with this Bill, to find any position ultimately preserved in the Cape for the chairman of the divisional council, and if the Minister has in mind that the chairman of the divisional council shall finally drop out, then we would like to know that because it must naturally, to some extent, qualify what we have to say hereafter. Because as the thing stands at present there are only divisional councils in the Cape, and it is specially provided here that in the Cape it shall be the chairmen of the divisional councils who shall have the powers to call for certain returns and to carry out certain investigations.

I would also like some information in regard to a provision which I know is in the existing law, but it seems to have been brought in here in a manner which perhaps calls for some explanation. In sub-section (4) (page 43), an owner or agent appears before one or other of these authorities; an oath or affirmation can be administered to him and he can be questioned in regard to any Bantu residing on or using his land or any matter relating to such residence or use, and it says that the Bantu Affairs Commissioner or chairman of those other bodies may consult any member of the S.A. Police or any officer in the Public Service. The picture presented here is that the farmer can be put on oath to give his evidence; the chairman of the board and, in the Cape, the chairman of the divisional council, or the Bantu Affairs Commissioner where there is none of the other three bodies, having put the farmer on oath, can consult any member of the S.A. Police or any officer in the Public Service. What form does the consultation take? We must bear in mind that this investigation may have been initiated by the Minister, not by the authority concerned, not by the control board but by the Minister. Sir, I say with the greatest sense of responsibility that we must realize that where you are dealing with Bantu Affairs Commissioners in this Bill you are dealing with people who are civil servants; they are not in the true sense of the word people who are there objectively as judicial officers; they are servants of the Department. They are State servants carrying out a policy of the State, and the situation which is developing under these particular circumstances is that the Minister can say to a Bantu Affairs Commissioner, “I now direct you to carry out an investigation into the labour of such and such a farmer”. When the Bantu Affairs Commissioner institutes an inquiry of this sort and he puts the farmer on oath, he is not just a judicial officer. I repeat: He is simply a civil servant in the employ of the Department of Bantu Administration. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has tried to do here what other hon. members did in my absence and that is to twist some of my words in such a way that they could attach a certain meaning to them.

They were not twisted at all.

I say they were twisted.

You were not here; how do you know what was said?

I was told what had been said here. The hon. member for Natal South Coast now comes along and does the same sort of thing in connection with this clause. He wants to suggest that everything in the garden is fine and lovely as far as the squatter and the White landowner are concerned. The hon. member knows as well as I do that that is simply not true, hence this provision in the Bill. The attitude of the Opposition in connection with this matter is completely beyond my comprehension. I simply cannot understand what impression hon. members opposite seek to create, and I cannot understand why they wish to do so. The hon. member, as a farmer in Natal, is just as aware as I am of the fact that we do find cases on our farms where steps will have to be taken under this measure if we wish to rectify the position in the agricultural industry. The position to-day is that the agricultural unions of all four provinces are begging the authorities to do away with certain old arrangements which existed between the labourer and the landowner. All those who have anything to do with this matter, including those hon. members who represent Natal, are familiar with the evils of that system, and yet they come along this afternoon and tell us that everything in the garden is fine and lovely and that the Minister wants to throw a spanner in the works. That is simply not correct. Sir, I am going to repeat the same words which I used the other day and which the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) wanted to twist; I repeat that a serious attempt is being made in this Bill—and this is something which we as agriculturists ought to welcome —to place the relationship between the Bantu employee and the White farm owner on a sound footing. We find that on one farm there is practically a location; the farmer has more labour than he can use; and what happens next door to the farmer who has no labour? I ask the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes): What happens to that farmer? Everything that he possesses is stolen from him. Is the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) not aware of that? No, these are facts which cannot be argued away. What little the one farmer has is still taken away from him. It is for this reason that the plea is constantly put forward at every agricultural union congress that there should be a bigger buffer strip between the Native Trust areas and the farms owned by Whites. One simply cannot farm where this state of affairs prevails. Here a serious attempt is being made now to rectify the position, and it looks as though the hon. member is going out of his way to find arguments that he can advance against this clause. I simply cannot understand why we should quarrel about a measure which is in the interests of every White farmer. Mr. Chairman, I want to say something now to the lawyers on the other side. I am quite prepared to sit and listen while they unravel the intricacies of an Act and while they split hairs, but when we come to legislation which affects me as a farmer they ought to have a little respect for my opinion and they must not come here and try to twist words which I never used. We gain nothing by it; all we do is to create the wrong impression outside.

You are in trouble.

I am sorry that the hon. member who has just sat down accuses this side of having twisted his words because for the greater part of the debate he was not here.

May I ask a question?

You have just spoken.

With regard to what I said the other day, the hon. member cannot complain that I twisted his words because the hon. the Deputy Minister in charge of this Bill agreed when I differed from the hon. member who has just spoken.

The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) dealt again with squatters and the gratifying results which, as he saw it, would flow from this clause. Sir, cannot one make it sufficiently clear that Section 33 of the existing Trust Act deals with squatters and gives powers of investigation and inquiry; it gives full powers of investigation so far as squatters are concerned; so let us leave aside squatters for the moment. Clause 25 of this Bill gives full powers of investigation and inquiry to labour control boards and labour tenant control boards. Why then is it necessary, as the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has said, again in Clause 29 to give a Bantu Affairs Commissioner or the chairman of a control board or the chairman of the divisional council, on the instructions of the Minister, powers to make yet further investigations? You already have three separate authorities—in the case of squatters, the Bantu Affairs Commissioner himself, on the instructions of the Minister. You have three sets of authorities each with powers of investigation, inquiry and the questioning of the owner or the agent of the owner of land. Why in those circumstances must such a power be given in addition in Clause 29 so far as the rendering of returns is concerned? There is power under the existing Section 35 of the Trust Act, which we now seek to amend in this clause, to require the rendering of returns, but there is no power under the existing law for further inquiry and investigation so far as labour employed by a farmer is concerned, and I have yet to hear an explanation why it is necessary on four separate occasions—this is the fourth—for that power to be taken by the officials concerned, but, more importantly why it should be taken by those officials on instructions from the Minister. As I say, on the case put up by the Government so far these powers seem to be quite redundant to the powers already provided for in the existing law and already taken in terms of Clause 25. I hope that before this clause is finally passed we will get an explanation why it is necessary additionally and again to provide for powers of investigation which so far, on the arguments we have had, seem to be quite redundant.

I just want to reply to the first few points made by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). He wants to know why provision has to be made for these returns in the Bill. I must point out to the hon. member that what we have in this clause is a combination and a limited extension of provisions which are contained already in two existing pieces of legislation. Section 35 of the Trust Act of 1936 contains provisions which are practically the same as the provision to which the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) has just referred. It is already provided in Section 35 of the Trust Act that as often as he may from time to time deem it necessary the Bantu Affairs Commissioner may, and upon instructions from the Minister shall, require any owner to transmit to him within a period specified a return showing (a) the names, (b) the particulars of the licence, etc. That is already provided for in the Trust Act. With that provision we are now combining other provisions which are contained in Section 8 of the Service Contract Act, Act 24 of 1932, an Act which Clause 14 of this Bill repealed. The existing provisions in those two Acts, one of which is being repealed, are therefore being combined here and the necessary adjustments are being made to conform with present-day practice. I think that is a full reply to the hon. member for South Coast and at the same time also to the hon. member for Zululand. But I am still dealing with the hon. member for South Coast who wants to know why reference is again made here to the chairman of the divisional council. This is the same old argument which was advanced here a few days ago. The hon. member knows perfectly well that reference is made in this provision to labour tenant control boards and to Bantu labour control boards. The clause provides who is entitled to call for these returns. The hon. member knows that the work of the labour tenant control board is done in the Cape by the divisional councils, and that is why the divisional councils are mentioned here.

I asked whether they were going to disappear.

No. We said so the other day. The labour tenant system is to disappear gradually, and in the Cape therefore the work which is being done by the divisional council under the labour tenant system must also disappear and labour control boards are to be instituted. That will take place in all the various provinces. Since the labour tenant system is to disappear the time must come when the divisional councils in the Cape will no longer do the work they are doing to-day under the labour tenant system because the system will have disappeared. That is perfectly clear.

The hon. member also referred to this question of consultation by the official concerned with an officer in the Public Service or with a member of the S.A. Police. Here again this is a provision which is already contained in the Act of 1932 to which I referred a moment ago and which is being repealed.

This is an existing provision; what is wrong with it? The hon. member and I are not lawyers, but he ought to be able to understand that easily if I tell him that this is a compromise; it is on a par with the system of appointing assessors. When an inquiry is instituted, the public servant dealing with the matter, without having to put an assessor on the bench, will now be able to consult another officer in the Public Service. He may require certain details; why should he not have the power to ask an officer of the Public Service or a police official for those details? There are no sinister motives behind this provision. The hon. member has gone out of his way really to try to find sinister motives here. Having said this, I think I have also replied to the hon. member for Zululand.

I am sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not explained this clause. The point which the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) put to him was that here the chairman of the labour bureau or the chairman of the labour tenants control board or the Bantu Affairs Commissioner has the right to call for certain things. He has the right to call for certain returns, for the names of Bantu residing on such land and for other information. Then the clause goes on to say that if in his opinion the information obtained is insufficient or unsatisfactory, he may direct such owner or agent by a notice in writing under his hand to appear before such Bantu Affairs Commissioner or chairman at a place and on a date and hour stated in such notice. It then goes on to say that such Bantu Affairs Commissioner or chairman may administer an oath or an affirmation. He may then question the owner or agent and he may also call in the police to give certain information. Then, when he has done all these things and is satisfied that the returns furnished to him are not correct or that the information furnished to him is insufficient or unsatisfactory, then the farmer or person giving those returns or making those statements shall be guilty of an offence. Sir, I do not know what on earth the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) was talking about. The speech which he made on this clause is one which he should have made at the second reading in dealing with the principle of the Bill. This has nothing to do with the question as to whether there should be labour tenants or not. because this clause deals with the specific things which I have mentioned here. Our point is that the Bantu Affairs Commissioner or the chairman concerned is not a legal person. He is a civil servant and yet he is going to be called upon to sit as though he constitutes a court. He will be able to act as a magistrate or as a Judge and he will be able to find that particular person guilty of an offence. That is our point.

No, that is not correct.

Read the clause. A Bantu Affairs Commissioner or the chairman of the body concerned may administer an oath to the person appearing before him, and after having done that he may consult with a police officer. In other words, he is acting as a magistrate in this case. Let me tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that this clause provides nowhere that the matter shall then go to a properly constituted court and heard by a person with legal training. Here a civil servant is going to decide that an offence has been committed, and he will find the person who in his opinion furnished insufficient or unsatisfactory information guilty of an offence. Our whole argument is that this clause places bureaucratic powers into the hands of ordinary people who have not been trained for this work. Sir, I come back to what I have said before: We will find that our farmers are hedged in; that their lives are going to be regimented by people appointed by the Minister and who have not been trained properly for the job.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has repeatedly given us the assurance that the divisional councils in the Cape function only on behalf of the labour tenant control boards and not on behalf of the Bantu labour control boards. He threw up his hands in despair a moment ago as though it was simply impossible for him to explain the position to us, but I shall be glad if he will explain it to us once again. Until such time as Bantu labour control boards are instituted in the Cape will there be no control over Bantu labour, whether it is squatter labour or ordinary hired labour? There is simply going to be no control, or is control going to be exercised by the divisional councils? If the chairman of the divisional council is not going to exercise control, as provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 35 (1), who is going to carry out that function while there are no labour tenant control boards and no Bantu labour control boards? We have repeatedly made the statement here that in areas where there are smallholdings and congregations of labourers, there must be control of that labour. If in a particular area there is neither a labour tenant control board nor a Bantu labour control board, is the chairman of the divisional council then going to function or is he not going to function? If he is not going to function and no Bantu labour control board has been established yet, who is going to function, or will there be no control at all over those Bantu? I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will go into this point once again so that we can have clarity once and for all on this question as to whether the chairman of the divisional council is going to function, either voluntarily or on the instructions of the Minister, until such time as a Bantu labour control board has been established.

The hon. member knows me well enough not to resent the remark which I am about to make, and I do so in pursuance of a remark which the hon. member himself made on one occasion when he said that he was going to lift the lid off the pot. The hon. member asks me to lift the lid off the pot but he himself must lift the lid off his pot so that I can understand him better. That is the trouble. It is not only a question of lifting the lid off the pot when it comes to replying to questions; it is also a question of lifting the lid off the pot when questions are put to me so that I can understand those questions. We have already disposed of the clause dealing with the establishment of labour tenant control boards and labour control boards. The hon. member will see that in terms of that clause a discretionary power is given to the Minister to establish these bodies where it is deemed desirable to do so. It is possible that in the Cape Province, where in any event there are far fewer labour tenants and where much less labour tenant control work has to be done by the divisional councils, the Minister may be able to establish labour control boards very much sooner than in other areas. It depends on whether it is desirable to establish them. The hon. member need not be afraid of the interim period. It is for the Minister to decide whether those bodies should be established on the ground that there is still work, formerly done by the old type of body, for the labour tenant control board to undertake. In the Cape that work is done by the divisional councils instead of by labour tenant control boards. When there is no longer such work, if there is only work for a labour control board, then the latter body will be established, and in the Cape it cannot be the divisional council; it will be a new body as we have already explained.

Sir, by virtue of Section 35, as it will be, an owner is obliged to furnish a return of all Bantu residing on his land. That form will be one of the pieces of information used in deciding whether there is too much labour on a particular farmer’s land. The result of that may be an inquiry, and the farmer concerned can be required to send some of his labour away. In view of the fact that a farmer can be, as it were, investigated as far as his labour is concerned, I shall be very glad to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether in fact it is intended to consult the farmer before labour is taken from the towns and from other parts and placed upon his farm. There are various provisions in this Bill which make it possible for various officers to return a labourer to what is often called his “home”. For example in Clause 12 we find that provision. There are several similar clauses. Perhaps I should rather refer to Clause 9 on page 17 where under (g) there will be power under the regulations for the “treatment and disposal or return to their homes or to a scheduled Native area or released area …” So sub-section (g), amongst others, makes it possible for labourers from the towns to be sent to what are called their “homes”. Very often those people originated on a farm and because there was surplus labour there they found their way to the towns. They can now apparently be sent back to those farms. My question to the hon. the Deputy Minister is this: Will the farmers concerned be consulted before these people are returned to their farms? Will they be consulted by the labour bureau concerned before they are sent back?

I think this is a most important point because at the present time farmers are finding that people are being sent to them from other places, notably from the towns, and are creating a considerable problem. The farmer has an increasing interest in the position now because he can be brought before various inquiries to inquire whether he has surplus labour on his farm. I trust the hon. the Deputy Minister will enlighten us in that regard.

It is really shocking to think that the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) can come here with the suggestion that this clause has something to do with the possibility of sending Bantu out of the urban areas to a farm and that he should base that suggestion on his mistaken notion that somewhere in this legislation there is a provision in terms of which a Bantu can be sent out of the urban areas to privately owned farms in the Republic. Not even the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) talked such nonsense here this afternoon.

I should like to try to reply to the points of substance which were made here this afternoon, and in doing so I shall have to repeat, to a certain extent, what the hon. the Deputy Minister said. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has made the statement here that adequate provision is made under Sections 33 and 39 of the Native Trust and Land Act to initiate an investigation into the number of Bantu on a particular farm. He wants to know why additional power is being given to the Minister here. There are two reasons for that. The powers to initiate investigations under Sections 33 and 39 are practically confined to investigations on the merits, to investigations which are initiated to determine how many Bantu there are; whether the number is adequate or whether the number is excessive, having regard to the labour requirements of the farmer concerned. The investigation under this clause is merely an investigation for the purpose of obtaining statistical data. This is not an investigation on the merits; it does not form part of the machinery to decide whether a certain number of Bantu should be allowed on the piece of land in question. The second reason why this power is being given to the Minister is that the Minister may wish to obtain statistics with a view to planning on a larger scale; it is not simply a repetition of the old power which existed under the United Party Government, a power which was given to the Minister in the 1936 Act, and in the 1932 Act to the magistrates as officials of the Minister. We may find that some hon. member opposite may come along to the Minister and complain that this measure is not being applied strictly in his district, that there are excessive numbers of Bantu in his district (which the hon. member for Pinelands says is the position in certain places) and that they are causing difficulties there. This machinery will then be available to the Minister to cause an inquiry to be instituted and to obtain information.

The hon. member for South Coast then went on to take exception to the provision that there may be consultation with a member of the S.A. Police. May I just quote to him the wording of the relevant provision in the 1932 Act. The words are precisely the same—

The wording is precisely the same.

The hon. member for Drakensberg tried to build up a certain point here. Sir, she misinterpreted the position. She says that an offence is being created here; that a person who fails to react in the right way has to appear before an official who is not a judicial officer. The fact that he is not a judicial officer makes no difference at all. The offence is created under sub-section (5); it is an offence if the person refuses to furnish a written return, if he refuses to heed the notice to appear and, if he does appear, refuses to reply to the questions put to him. Surely the fact that he refuses or neglects to do a particular thing has nothing to do with the judicial character of the officer. If the person concerned neglects to do what is required of him, then some other judicial officer will hold a judicial inquiry on some other occasion to ascertain whether an offence has been committed and whether the person concerned in fact neglected to do what the Act prescribes. The offences which are created here can reasonably be compared with the various offences which are created under our census legislation. Under the Census Act it is an offence to refuse or to fail to notify the authorities how many people slept on your premises during the night in question. Then again, under our agricultural census legislation it is an offence to refuse to say how many head of cattle you have on your farm. That return is rendered to a non-judicial enumerator. Surely that has nothing to do with the matter. I want to make an appeal to hon. members either to remain silent or to talk about this clause; I should prefer them, however, to remain silent.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Kempton Park has evaded answering my question by suggesting that there was no link whatsoever between what I put and the clause. I think I have dealt with it sufficiently and I think the hon. the Deputy Minister, who was about to get up, might have been prepared to give the House information on what is an important point. I do not think it has been made clear in this House whether in fact a farmer in the position in which a farmer can find himself under this law will be consulted before people are sent back to him.

Nobody can be sent back to him.

The hon. member says nobody can be sent back to such a farmer; but I shall be glad to know that that is the position because at the present time when people are sent out of the urban areas they are very much arriving back at the place where, it is alleged, they came from. I shall be very glad to have the knowledge that that is not so. I sincerely trust the hon. the Deputy Minister will not shield behind the same argument as did the hon. member for Kempton Park and thus evade answering a very fair question.

Clause put and agreed to (official Opposition dissenting).

On Clause 31,

I should like to move a simple amendment here to set out the position more clearly—

I move this amendment for quite obvious reasons and it is not necessary for me, therefore, to explain it in greater detail.

What I have to say really, to a certain extent, follows on what the hon. the Deputy Minister has just moved. One notices at page 47, Section 38quat (2) that—

I want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister what sort of powers, functions and duties it is intended to prescribe for these labour liaison officers or farm inspectors, as they are referred to in the White Paper? I ask that, Sir, because in the Bill which appeared last year the powers, functions and duties of these inspectors were set out in the text at page 52. In order to give the House an idea of what was then contemplated I shall read what those powers and functions and duties were. First of all, an inspector could “enter upon land and make such investigations and inquiries as he may deem necessary”. That is, he could enter upon land at all reasonable times. I may say that the consent of the owner to such inspection was not necessary. The inspector could “make extracts from and examine the books, records and documents found by him or require persons who had custody of the books or documents or records to make available” such books or to seize any such book or record as evidence of the commission of an offence. The inspector could question either alone or in the presence of another person, as he thought fit, any person found on the land, which would include the owner himself or his servant or his agent or a member of his family and he could require any person whom he had reasonable ground to believe could give information in regard to the suspected commission of an offence under the chapter to appear before him and answer questions in that regard. Those were far-reaching powers to be given to an official in respect of any land to which this clause of that Bill applies. One wonders why those powers have been omitted from the present Bill and why the powers to be conferred upon these officials should merely be set out in regulations which are to follow hereafter? The powers given in the Bill last year were in every way distasteful and repugnant. I shall be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister will give the House an indication as to what powers it is proposed to set out by way of regulations in terms of sub-section (2) of the clause we are discussing at the moment.

I refer to 38quin on page 47 of the Bill. Why does it say “… or direct that no further Bantu be accommodated …”? I think the words “no further” require some clarification. One realizes that the tenor of this whole Bill establishes that the term “further Bantu” represent, in the mind of the Government, the ideal Bantu, the “further Bantu”,— in fact, the further the better! But one does want to know what happens after a certain situation has arisen, when the Minister, having had reason to believe that any farm or portion thereof is used extensively or primarily for the accommodation of Bantu and not for bona fide farming operations, may by notice in the Gazette, etc. direct such owner to reduce within a stated period etc. That, of course, means that the order may be to reduce the number to zero—in other words, that all the Bantu must be done away with. This is born out by the description of this clause in the margin: “Abolition of labour farms”. Further down it reads—

What I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister is this, Sir: At this stage, after consideration, say, by the board, can the determination be that not a single Bantu can be accommodated on that particular farm, regardless of the question of the so-called superfluity of the Bantu on that farm?

When one talks in ignorance!

It is all very well for the hon. member for Heilbron to say this is “onkunde” (ignorance). But the fact is that “no further Bantu” should either be defined as no “additional” Bantu, or that as from a certain date—in the future—no Bantu at all may be accommodated. “Further” in this context can mean “in addition to a certain fixed number already arrived at after this consideration” —or does it mean that no Bantu whatsoever, that Bantu zero, can be accommodated? I think clarification of the word “further” in that context would be of some use.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) and I are always having words because he does not read things correctly. I am not going to give judgment on that, Sir. The hon. member should read what 38quin says—

It is very clear that that clause has been inserted with the object that it should refer to what are called labour farms, labour farms which are kept by people and on which a number of Bantu live, not to work on those farms but who are kept there to form a pool; Bantu who go and work elsewhere. It relates to that position. In other words the objective of Section 38quin is, as time goes on, to put an end to this type of labour farm. I hope its objective is now clear to the hon. member.

The hon. member for Pinelands is unfortunately not here but I shall nevertheless reply to his question. He referred to the appointment of the labour liaison officers. I can assure him that we do not intend appointing all sorts of evil inquisitors. The labour liaison officers will, as the clause clearly indicates, be appointed in general terms to supervise, give advice and to tackle undertakings in connection with the application of Chapter IV as it is generally called, that is to say, the labour control board system as is now provided for here. As the name clearly implies he will be a liaison officer. He has to serve as a link between the employer and the Department as controlling authority, and I want to go so far as to say, also between us and the Bantu as employee. Certain procedures will be laid down according to which that officer will have to work. We shall draw up those regulations with due consideration to the powers which the regulations give us. We shall not prescribe just any procedure for him to follow. We have to frame them within the provisions of these regulations. If at all possible, I should also like to give hon. members the assurance that those officers will have to perform their tasks with the intention of eliminating those things which may perhaps cause difficulty to both the farmers and the employees.

This is another example of the placing of enormous powers in the hands of the Minister, powers which are subject to no control. The Minister is given the power not even to give the owner of the farm an opportunity of making representations to show that the Minister’s belief in regard to the matter is incorrect. Without the owner having been drawn into it, if the Minister has reason to believe, he can make a determination in terms of this clause. Sir, this is a type of legislation which, I believe, is becoming all too common in this country. I believe we should not lightly place provisions of this nature on our Statute Book. Because there is no protection in this clause, as I see it, against an abuse of power.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has not answered the question put by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel). The provision under Section 38quin provides for two alternatives. The Minister may direct the owner to reduce the number. That is quite clear. On the assumption that there are 40 Bantu living on the farm the Minister can order the number to be reduced to 20 or 10 or five. If he reduces the number to five then the position is clear. But the other alternative is to direct that no further Bantu … Now, if the word “further” were removed I would understand it. Because he would then direct that no Bantu be kept, not even the five. But when the word “further” appears in the English text and the word “verdere” in the Afrikaans text, I fail to see what it means. I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister has answered the point raised by my hon. friend.

May I then put the question to the hon. the Deputy Minister in this way, as pointed out by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). Say there are 40 Bantu on the farm, and the Minister directs that “no further Bantu” be accommodated. Does that mean that the 40 can remain, but that there can be no increase in that number? This is the point. What does this mean—“direct that no further Bantu be accommodated or housed on such farm”? Does it means that no Bantu whatsoever may be accommodated on that farm? While I thank the hon. Deputy Minister for his explanation of the part of the clause from lines 45 to 50, I am sorry he did not deal with my point explicitly, because it definitely is not clear.

I clearly said that this provision related to the abolition of labour farms, pools. The hon. member wants to know what the subsequent words mean “direct that no further Bantu be accommodated or housed on such farm or any specified portion thereof”. The order the Minister will issue will depend on circumstances. If the Minister thinks there is reason that it should be done gradually he may perhaps say to him: “You have many Bantu here, reduce the number to so many.” If the Minister is of the opinion there is no valid reason for that he may say to him: “Reduce the number to zero.” If the Minister, in his most merciful frame of mind, thinks the number he has at the moment is justified, he can say to him: “Very well, retain those you have at the moment, but you may not add to their numbers.” In other words, you start from the very top and you go down to zero. Those are the different gradings. What else is there to be explained in this connection?

I want to ask the hon. Minister a question in regard to 38quat (1) (a), where it says—

Then it goes on to say—

Then the powers are set out, and so forth. Now, Sir, am I right in supposing that a labour liaison officer can then be a Bantu? You see, Sir, the reference to the laws governing the Public Service, merely means that he must occupy a prescribed post, and as long as a Bantu in the service of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development occupies a prescribed post …

I will not appoint a Bantu.

The hon. Minister gives us the assurance that he will not appoint a Bantu as labour liaison officer, but as the law stands he could do so. The law has been altered. I want to suggest to the Minister that he alters it again to make that quite clear, because as the matter stands there is no argument about it. The reference to the Public Service is merely another way of saying that the person concerned shall occupy a classified post in the Civil Service, and there are such Bantu, as I understand the position, quite a number of them, and there is nothing whatever to prevent the Minister from appointing a Bantu as a labour liaison officer. If the hon. Minister will go back to Clause 35 in line 48, he will find that a person can raise this matter in writing—here it was a case of a labour liaison officer reporting to the labour tenants control board or to a Bantu labour control board that in his opinion there was surplus labour on a certain farm, etc. At that time I raised the point, but it was not replied to and the clause we are dealing with now is the one that specifically provides the authority for the appointment of these officers. I therefore would like to ask the hon. the Minister to make it abundantly clear that he does not intend to appoint Bantu to this particular post, so that we have got it on the record that that is the position. The law as it stands leaves it open.

I am quite prepared to give that assurance, but perhaps the hon. member for South Coast will agree with me that under present conditions there are no such posts in the Civil Service. It is not a question of an existing post that can be filled. There are no such posts for Bantu or for Europeans at the present moment, and it is definitely not the intention to appoint Bantu in these posts. One practical reason for that the hon. member will find in this very same clause. The hon. member will see that it says in subsection (b)—

That is inclusive, not exclusive.

Yes, but the hon. member can envisage what the position would be if a member of the Bantu labour control board should be regarded as a liaison officer and would have another liaison officer with whom he must co-operate and that one being a Bantu. It is a matter of impossibility. That, as an hon. member behind me says, is a form of integration that will never be applied here. It does not arise.

The hon. Deputy Minister intentionally or by accident omitted to reply to the point I raised in regard to line 28 on page 47. My point was in regard to the powers and functions of the labour liaison officers which are to be prescribed by regulation, but which were specified in last year’s Bill. I want to know whether it is intended to give them substantially or materially the same powers in these regulations as they were set out in the Bill last year?

The powers and duties and functions and procedure as to how to act, and so forth, which will be prescribed for these labour officers, are duties in connection with which I do not want to give the assurance that they will be worded or drawn up in precisely the same way as they were in last year’s Bill. Hon. members know this is a new post which is being created, it is a post to govern relationship, a post that has to influence the relationship between employers and employees and we shall to a great extent be guided by circumstances as they develop. That is why I do not wish to give a definite assurance in that regard. But I can give the hon. member this assurance, as I said a moment ago with reference to the question of the hon. member for South Coast, the object of that post is simply to have somebody there who can maintain good relationships in the execution of the work to be done in terms of Chapter IV of the Trust Act and who has a sufficiently good conception of the work to be done. For this reason I do not, at this stage, nor can I, even if I wanted to, and I ought not, to be too definite and say the person will do this or the person will do that.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has once again given us the assurance that this Section 38quin relates to labour farms. Although we should like to accept that, we must take it that the hon. the Deputy Minister will certainly not always be there to carry out the law. Nowhere is it stated that it relates to labour farms. On the contrary it states “a farm or a portion of a farm used exclusively or primarily for the accommodation or housing of Bantu”. Say 20 morgen are set aside to-morrow for a labour camp, primarily or exclusively for the housing of Bantu. An official then gets the idea, or it is reported by a friendly or unfriendly fellow-farmer of the owner of that land, that there are too many labourers on that portion of the farmer’s farm, whether it is 10 morgen or 20 morgen which have been set aside mainly for the housing of Bantu. A report is sent in that in the opinion of somebody or in the opinion of the farmers’ association there are too many Bantu on that piece of land. It can then be ordered that the number of labourers should be reduced or reduced to zero. If the hon. the Minister, through his legal draftsmen, wants to pass a law to relate to labour farms he should instruct them to draft it more clearly.

What the hon. member has said is very far-fetched, Sir. It is farfetched to allege that this clause refers to a particular undivided share of a farm, for example, a grazing camp of the farmer or something like that. To read that into this section is far-fetched.

Who said that?

The hon. member, because he talked about a portion of a farmer’s farm. This only refers to portions of the farm which have been set aside. For the hon. member’s information I just want to give him a few figures so that he will realize the scope of the evil we are faced with. I want to mention one district in Natal where there are 164 owners and the district consists of an area of 180,000 acres. According to the evidence there are only seven owners or managers on those farms—seven out of the 164. In the case of 157 the owners live elsewhere. I want to give the following further data: Thirteen of those farms are 3,000 or more acres in size. They are economic units; 23 are between 2,000 and 3,000 acres and they are quast-economic units; 53 farms are between 1,000 and 2,000 acres and I shall call them doubtful economic units; then there are 34 between 500 and 1,000 acres and the balance are under 500 acres and uneconomic. But all of them are occupied by Bantu, not to work there, because those 157 farms are lying there. Not one of them is being farmed by a White farmer. Only Bantu live there and they go from there to work elsewhere. That is the evil we are faced with there. To maintain that the smaller portions of 200 and 300 acres are farms would make the position quite untenable. Then somebody may say: “I only have a portion of a farm and this does not apply to me.” That is why specific reference is made to “portions of farms”, because farms have been sub-divided with the specific object of placing a number of Natives there to serve as a source of labour. That was the only reason why the land was sub-divided, not to farm, because they are all uneconomic units; it was specifically sub-divided to place a number of Bantu on them to form a source of labour. I cannot understand why the hon. member objects to this.

I also want to reply to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel). The hon. member is very worried about the word “further”. The clause refers to a labour pool and if a farm is used for that purpose, it is provided that “there will be no further Bantu”. But if the farmer says: “No, I am now going to use the labour farm for bona fide farming operations,” he may be told that five or ten of the number of Bantu who had formed the labour reservoir can remain on the farm after the labour board has decided how many he will require for his actual bona fide farming operations on the farm.

I still want to deal with the other objections raised by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) who said that we were again taking certain powers under the proposed regulations with the result that the Minister would have greater and greater power. I want to emphasize that the power to make regulations is always subject to the approval of this House. All the regulations are Tabled and studied by the select committee and the report of the select committee is submitted to this House and if the Minister has taken certain powers this House can discuss them in detail. He is limited to act within the framework of the law and the powers which the law confers upon him and if he acts beyond those the courts may rule that he has acted ultra vires and if he has acted ultra vires hon. members discuss them in this House after they have been Tabled and check to see whether the regulations were lawful or not.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has followed the Minister in reading something into the Bill which is not there. We are dealing with the Bill as it appears before us here. The hon. member must show me where it states in the Bill that it has to be a sub-divided portion of a farm. It says that the Bill will apply exclusively and mainly to a portion of a farm. As I have said it may be 20 morgen of a farmer’s farm which have been set aside exclusively and mainly for occupation by Bantu, not a sub-divided portion.

Then he lets it.

Oh no, that has nothing to do with it. The hon. member for Heilbron says it is not reasonable to put it that way because that is not the intention in the Bill, the intention in the Bill is that it should be a sub-divided portion of a farm which has been set aside exclusively for occupation by Bantu. In that case that must be stated in the Bill. Hon. members opposite are apparently under the impression that this side of the House is opposed to the wishes for the South African Agricultural Union that the squatter system should be tapered down until it eventually disappears. They are totally wrong. We are equally strong supporters of the recommendation of the S.A. Agricultural Union but the cardinal difference is this that when we see problems in the provisions of a Bill as drafted and we want the hon. the Minister to put them right by way of amendment, hon. members opposite say we are opposed to it.

Have you an amendment?

The hon. the Deputy Minister knows what we think of this whole Bill and of amendments to a Bill we do not want to be associated with. We think less of the Bill than we have stated, but the wording of this Bill is completely vague because it does not contain what the Minister and the hon. member for Heilbron say it does.

I want to move for a moment to another point and that is in connection with sub-paragraph (b) of 38-quat. It provides that members of a labour tenants or Bantu labour control board shall so long as they hold office as such be deemed to have been appointed as labour liaison officers for the purposes of this Chapter. That is quite clear and I take it that it incorporates in the Cape the divisional councils, because for all the purposes of a labour tenants control board, a divisional council is deemed to be the same. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting when you go back to Clause 25 to find that one of the two people named who may make a complaint regarding surplus labour on a farm is “an owner of land in such area, or a labour liaison officer appointed under 38quat”. They can make a complaint to the Bantu labour control board or the labour tenant control board that there is surplus labour on a particular farm and then the machinery established for the purpose of holding an inquiry is set into motion. It is interesting to see what the White Paper has to say about this. It says this on page 13—

This man who is an official can report on surplus labour on a farm and start the machinery for an investigation, but he himself is a member of the Bantu labour control board or of the labour tenant control board as the case may be. So that you have the situation that a man who is a member of such a board acts as in plain language, a snooper for the board itself. When once he is satisfied that in a certain area there is surplus labour he makes an official report to a body of which he is himself a member. Or three members may do so, or even four, because there is a chairman and three farmer members, and this member here presumably is a farmer member, but it does not say so; it says “a member of the control board”, and that can be the chairman as well. All four of them are in the position to act as official informers with their powers and duties to be prescribed by regulation. The White Paper says what their duties are, namely, the carrying out of the determinations of their own board. Surely we cannot possibly agree to a provision like this where official informers, appointed as inspectors of farms are themselves sitting as members of the body to which they themselves report. Supposing that all four of them report in regard to a farm that there is surplus labour on that farm. Those reports come in and have to be dealt with by these four members of the Board. Sir, this is not a Jack Ruby trial; this is a case where there is no argument as to where the accused is going to stand; the moment he comes before that board to answer an inquiry in regard to the surplus labour on his farm, he is sunk really before he starts. What a curious provision for the Minister to actually put into his Bill that the people who are to act as official informers in regard to these matters and to start the machinery rolling which is to bring this man before the Board of which they are themselves members—are the judges, and only in certain circumstances is there an appeal allowed to some other body outside of these people. I think it is a most extraordinary provision and we can never possibly agree to that kind of provision in our laws.

This clause places an onus on an accused person to show that the land in question, whether the accused person is a landowner (that is to say a farmer) or a Bantu on the land, that the land is not subject to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Trust Act. Now Chapter IV is made applicable to land of this kind by a notice in the Government Gazette, and I do not think that even the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration and Development will allege that in the remote parts of the country districts there is a wide sale of the Government Gazette. Why, Sir, when it is so easy for a government official, such as a prosecutor in a court of law, to have access to the Government Gazette and the Government records and to readily produce such a record to show that the land is subject to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act, why in those circumstances put the onus of disproof on the accused person (that is to say, the farmer who may be charged under this Chapter for having Bantu wrongfully living on his land, or on the Bantu himself who may be charged with wrongfully living on that land), that Chapter IV of the Trust Act applies to that piece of land? Nothing is more difficult for the ordinary man to do than that. The hon. member for Heilbron says that that is far-fetched. He is a lawyer, but why should such an onus be placed on an accused person in a court of law, who, if he cannot disprove that Chapter IV is applicable to that land, is subject to a fine or a term of imprisonment? He may not have the advantage of the services of the hon. member for Heilbron to defend him. Why should that onus be placed on an accused person, whether he be a Bantu or a White land-owner? Why should he be subject to that burden, when it is the easiest thing in the world for the prosecutor to get that information and to produce proof in court that the man is so subject to the provisions of Chapter IV? Unless the hon. Deputy Minister can show that there is an insuperable difficulty in enabling a prosecutor to prove that point by the mere production of a Gazette, there is no reason why such a heavy onus should be put on an accused person.

The hon. member who has just sat down objects to the accused in this case having to prove that the land with which we are concerned here is land to which this Chapter applies. The position is not that he has to prove his guilt or his innocence but merely the fact, which now becomes a suspicion, and if he is charged and it has to do with this land, that it is land to which this Chapter applies. Which land is it? It is stated in Clause 25. It is land situated in a separate Native area. I do not know whether the hon. member objects to it. “Any land within a prescribed area, any land of which the Native Trust is the registered owner …” The hon. member now advances the peculiar argument that there are so few subscribers to the Government Gazette in those distant little towns. How are the poor people in those distant towns to know from the Government Gazette what laws this House has passed? Although they are not subscribers they are supposed to know the law because it has been published in the Government Gazette. Let me give an example. Some years ago we passed legislation in this House relating to the Bushmen in the North Western and North Eastern parts of South West Africa. According to the hon. member we should not place the onus on those Bushmen because they do not get the Government Gazette and they do not know what appears in it. That is the stupid kind of argument we get, Sir. I think it is far-reaching to say that because people do not get the Government Gazette the on us should not be on them to show that the land is not subject to the Act. Surely we have to show some common sense and not advance such stupid arguments.

May I just, for enlightenment, ask whether land adjoining a released area falls under this particular clause because the hon. the Minister knows that that is influenced by the law?

Clause 18 of this Bill defines the land to be included.

The hon. member for Heilbron has complained about the charge made by the hon. member for Zululand and he calls it ridiculous, but I must admit that I have never heard a more ridiculous reply than that given by the hon. member for Heilbron, bringing the Bushmen into it. I certainly hope that before the Bushmen are prosecuted for any offence under the Act, the Department will hold meetings to explain to them what the offence is, and not rely on the Bushmen to read the Government Gazette.

Sir, there is no reason why the State should not prove that a property falls under Chapter IV. As the hon. member for Zululand has said it is the easiest thing for the prosecutor to do. He must know whether an offence has been committed or not, and he can prove that the property falls under the Chapter. All he has to do is to produce the Gazette. How must the poor farmer prove that his farm does not fall under the operation of the law? We are making it easier and easier in every law that we pass for the State to get a conviction and more and more the onus is being cast on the accused these days. It is time to put a stop to it and we on this side are opposed to this clause.

Let me correct the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) on the question of the Government Gazette which can be submitted as evidence in a court. I am informed that there have been court cases where the Government Gazette has been used as evidence and where the court has refused to accept it. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) thinks I am saying something terrible but I am not to blame if the court refuses to accept that procedure and that it does not regard the Government Gazette in those cases as being conclusive evidence. Hon. members must realize what is at stake here. It is alleged that a certain piece of land is the land on which the offence has been committed. It must then be determined exactly whether that piece of land falls within or without the area defined in Clause 18. Who is the person who can produce the most conclusive proof in regard to the situation and the identity of that farm? It is the person in whose name the deed of transfer is registered and who knows exactly where his farm is situated from beacon to beacon. If it is suspected that a certain piece of land belongs to a certain owner and that an offence has been committed the charge is made against him. That is far from finding him guilty. The complainant cannot prove exactly that that is the piece of land concerned and that it does indeed fall within the area defined in Chapter IV. In that case it is the simplest thing in the world for the person who has conclusive proof in his possession as to where that land is situated, namely the registered owner, to produce the proof that his farm lies outside the defined area in which case the charge falls away. By shifting the onus on the owner we are simplifying the procedure. If the onus rested on the complainant the case may drag on for years to the detriment of everybody concerned. I cannot understand how the hon. member can object to that. The principle that the onus should rest on the accused has recently been introduced in legislation.

I think it is a shocking reply that the hon. Deputy Minister has just given. We had decided only to record our opposition to this clause, but now we will call for a division on it. What the Minister has just said amounts to this, that the State will go on a fishing expedition and the accused person must prove his innocence. That is a shocking statement to make.

That is a shocking interpretation of my words.

The Minister has just said that the State will not know whether the farmer has committed an offence or not, but he is charged and he has to prove his innocence. I am sorry we cannot accept this explanation given by the Minister, and we will oppose the clause.

I really think it is a shocking state of affairs that hon. members can place that interpretation on these words. What is the position? Let us start with subsection (2) which talks about “any land in a scheduled Native area”. The State has to prove that that particular farm falls within that particular area. How can it do so? It can only do so by getting an official, the Surveyor-General or somebody else to identify that piece of land and to say that it falls within that area. It must particularly be proved that it is a scheduled area. The land has to be identified as being land referred to in the Act. Let us come to (b) “and other land which the Minister by notice in the Gazette excludes from the operation of this Chapter”. That piece of land has to be identified. You cannot simply hand in the Government Gazette and say it refers to that piece of land because it does not identify the land. It only proves that something has been announced in the Government Gazette but this particular land has to be identified as being land referred to in the Government Gazette. Hon. members now wish to saddle the State, in the case of a minor matter with the costs of getting an official from Pretoria or from Cape Town, where the Surveyor General has his offices, to prove where the farm is situated, while the farmer has all the knowledge. He knows he is the registered owner of that land and he can produce his deed of transfer. That is sufficient proof because if the deed of transfer shows that it is land mentioned by the Minister in the Government Gazette he is guilty because in that case it is land concerned in the matter. But if he hands it in and it proves that that is not the position the whole case falls away. Let me just tell hon. members what our rules of evidence say, namely, that he who alleges must prove. That is according to the rules of evidence except for the two exceptions made in the Criminal law. The one exception is where something is within the peculiar knowledge of the accused and this is a case where it is in the peculiar knowledge of the accused and that is why he falls under this exception. If the hon. member would only study his rules of evidence he would know that that is one of the exceptions in the existing law of evidence.

I have the greatest difficulty in following the argument of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). Let us assume for a moment that he is entirely correct, that it is very difficult to prove whether or not a particular property falls within a prescribed area, which is (b), or other land which the Minister by notice in the Gazette excludes from the operation of the Act. Let us assume that you cannot prove merely by the production of the Gazette that the land is within such a prescribed area …

[Inaudible.]

Very well I accept the hon. member’s argument. He says that you have to get surveyors from Pretoria and people from the Deeds office. Sir, is that something which the State with all its might and wealth can do with less ease than the private individual? Surely if there is all this difficulty and expense involved in proving a point of this kind, then that is a burden which should be borne by the State. Why put this tremendous onus of proof on the private individual, when, as we now gather, it may amount to nothing more than a mere fishing expedition. Surely these inquiries should be made by the Department of State concerned, by the Attorney-General’s office or by the Department of Bantu Administration before such a charge is made. If there is all this great difficulty there is a very easy method whereby the hon. the Minister can overcome it. All he requires to do is to insert a provision in this Bill to the effect that upon production of an affidavit by the relevant Official, either in the Surveyor-General’s office or in the Deeds office, that such a piece of land falls within the prescribed area concerned, it shall be accepted in the courts of law as prima facie proof of what it contains. All these difficulties will then disappear. But if we put a burden of this kind on the accused, particularly when proof of the facts concerned involves the tremendous expense and difficulty referred to by the hon. member for Heilbron, then this clause becomes a great deal more burdensome and objectionable than we at first thought.

After discussion, amendment put and agreed to.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

I should like to deal particularly with sub-section (c) which inserts a new sub-section (u)—

This clause includes the power, by regulation to specify the functions and duties of these boards and the principles to be followed or the matters to be taken into consideration by these boards in approving of the registration of labour tenants or Bantu employees or in the making of any determination or order under this Act. First, I should like to deal with words I have not read thus far and those are the words in parenthesis namely (which may include the availability of non-Bantu labour).

Let us deal, to begin with, with the power of labour tenant control boards. I think it is well known that the labour tenant system is largely used in those areas of the country where there is no Coloured labour and no Asiatic labour. That broadly speaking, Sir, is the position even in Natal. What I am trying to say is this: In the farming districts where the labour tenant system is working there are not quantities of Coloured labour or quantities of Asiatic labour available. [Interjections.] I think the answer has probably been given me by the interjection of the hon. member for Heilbron. By the use of these words “which may include the availability of non-Bantu labour” is the intention that that is one of the factors that must be taken into consideration? For example, is it intended to convey that the control board must take into account the availability of non-Bantu labour in the area over whose jurisdiction the board is presiding or the availability of unemployed non-Bantu labour in other parts? For example, it is well known that there are in the big towns quantities of unemployed Asiatics. Now, this is where the interjection by the hon. member for Heilbron is pertinent. Did he intend, by his interjection, to convey that in those parts of Northern Natal where the labour tenant system operates the labour tenant control boards in making their determinations there can have regard to the availability of non-Bantu labour in Durban or Pietermaritzburg, i.e. the availability of unemployed Asiatics in Durban? Is that what is intended? If not, Sir, what is the purport of these words “which may include the availability of non-Bantu labour” so far as labour tenant control boards are concerned? Because, as I say, they will operate largely in those parts of the country where there is no labour other than Bantu labour. That is the first point.

Secondly, why is the reference in this subsection to the availability of non-Bantu labour and why is the reference not to suitable non-Bantu labour? If the reference were to suitable non-Bantu labour it might make some sense, although one did not agree with it. But these control boards are to have regard merely to unemployed non-Bantu, whether or not they may be suitable for the type of farming work the existing labour is doing.

I have only dealt with the powers of labour tenant control board but it goes much further. The Bantu labour control boards will function similarly. They will function under regulations where they too will have to have regard to the availability of non-Bantu labour. I hope we will be told during the course of this debate precisely what is intended so far as the making of regulations is concerned, which will include these words “the availability of non-Bantu labour”? And particularly in regard to those areas in Natal where the only other labour which is available is, broadly speaking, either Asiatic or White. When we come down to the level of Bantu labourers on farms the Whites are out of the question because there are very few labourers amongst the Whites who belong to that category. I hope we shall be given some explanation as to what this means and what it is intended to convey in regulations which are to be gazetted in terms of this clause. It is worded in a most unusual manner. It says that the powers and functions which are to be set out will have regard to an additional factor which we have so far come across in this legislation, i.e. the part in brackets (the availability of non-Bantu labour).

I want to explain briefly why it is necessary to put it this way. I want to take the constituency of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) himself as example. There are 30,000 Pondos from Pondoland working in the constituency of the hon. member for Zululand. They mainly work in the sugar plantations there. At the same time there is a large measure of unemployment amongst the Indians in Zululand. That is the position we are dealing with. At the moment where the sugar farmers of Zululand are importing Bantu labour there is a large unemployed Indian population on their doorstep. That is one situation we have to take into account. There are many similar situations. We have the position in the Western Cape, for example, where we have unemployed Coloureds but where farmers, in spite of that, import Bantu labour. One of the factors which these boards will have to take into account is, inter alia, the availability of non-Bantu labour. I now come to the question of the hon. member whether the availability of non-Bantu labour means the availability of such labour throughout the country. I would not go as far as that. That will depend on the regulations.