With the adjournment yesterday I raised the question of the powers to be given to the Bantu labour control board, as set out in the regulations which will be made in terms of this clause, and I had raised the question which then appears where there is reference to the fact that in the regulations the labour control boards will be empowered to take into account, in deciding how many labourers one may have on a farm, the availability of non-Bantu labour. The point I raised was: Does this mean merely that the availability of non-Bantu labour will be taken into account, or does it mean that that labour will have to be suitable labour? I was replied to by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), who is the Chairman of the Native Affairs Commission, and his speech was to the effect that I should look at my own constituency because he said in my constituency some 30,000 Pondos are imported every year for the purpose of working in the sugar plantations and at the same time there were present in my constituency thousands of unemployed Asiatics, and that it was an anomalous situation that one should be importing Bantu labour from Pondoland when there were thousands of unemployed Asiatics available to do the work. Sir, this is the most astonishing thing I have ever heard, because it means only one thing, that because of the presence on the north coast of Natal of many unemployed Asiatics— in the towns, I may say; people quite unconnected with the rural areas or with farm work —the number of Bantu labourers employed in that area is to be limited when these regulations are made, to compel the farmers to use Asiatic labour. Now, the only reason why 30,000 Pondos are recruited in Pondoland and brought there at considerable expense to work in the sugar-fields is because it was found quite impossible to find suitable labour amongst the Asiatics.

That is not so.

The hon. member will recall that the Asiatics were brought to Natal for the express purpose of working in the canefields, but in the generations that have gone by they have left the canefields entirely and have in fact become white-collar workers, and to make those people work in the fields would require not only compulsion—and I shall be glad to know how that will be put into operation—but a quadrupling of the wages which the sugar farmers would have to pay, and it would break the sugar industry from top to bottom overnight. That is why I say that the speech we heard yesterday from the hon. member for Heilbron—and I emphasize that he speaks as the Chairman of the Native Affairs Commission and not merely as an ordinary member on the Government side—not only reveals the import of this clause and it not only justifies the worst fears which this side of the House have expressed in regard to this Bill, but it justifies entirely the strictures raised by this side against this measure, that herein lies the doom of the farming community. Quite certainly, if we are to accept what the hon. member for Heilbron said, it amounts to this: You will get rid of your Pondo labour and employ the Asiatics instead because they are unemployed. If that is so, then certainly the sugar industry is in for a very grave time indeed. I may say for the benefit of the hon. member that there are no Pondos imported into Zululand proper, north of the Tugela, although they are imported to work on the north coast. But I repeat—and I speak only for the section of the industry with which I am connected; no doubt others can speak for the areas where Coloured labour is available—there can be no greater threat to the expansion and the efficiency of sugar farming on the north coast of Natal than the threat to remove the recruited Pondo labour without which farming there could not be carried on at all.

It is a pity that the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) completely wrested out of context what I said.

Is that so?

We are dealing with the powers granted to the Minister to make regulations, inter alia, that when those regulations are made certain principles have to be followed, and circumstances in regard to the availability of other than Bantu labour should be taken into consideration; in other words, the principles such a board has to take into consideration when determining how much Bantu labour should be allowed on a farm, or how many labour tenants are allowed, are some of the factors it will need to have regard to. I said, inter alia, that a factor which would have to be taken into consideration is, for example, that in Northern Zululand—in the constituency of Zululand—there are 30,000 Pondos. Most of them are south of the Tugela, but they are in the constituency of Zululand to which I referred, and I said that that was a factor which would have to be taken into consideration when a determination was made in regard to labour in Zululand. I did not say that they should be compelled to employ non-Bantu, but it is a factor which will be taken into consideration in making these determinations. [Interjections.] Another factor is that in the same constituency there are more than 30,000 Shangaans from Mozambique, and they are north of the Tugela. I also investigated that position. That is also a factor which will probably be considered, but that is not what is specifically meant here; we talk here of non-Bantu labour. I also mentioned another example, and I said that in regard to the employment of Bantu labour in the Western Cape the availability of Coloured labour should be considered. Nobody is compelled to employ them, but it is a factor which must be taken into consideration in making the determination. If the hon. member’s statement is correct that none of those Indians is available for work on the sugar plantations, not even at four times the wages paid to Bantu workers, then they are simply not available. That is obvious. But he puts it as if I said that they would be compelled to employ Indians, even though it cost four times as much as for Bantu workers. I never said that, and he cannot draw such an inference. But if there are Indians who are prepared to work for the same wage, that is a factor which is taken into consideration, and then they ought to work there. Then one does not have to import labour when there is labour on one’s doorstep. That is the point. Labour is available, and why should one import it? That is all that is meant by availability of labour. Why does the hon. member now try to sow suspicion against this clause? It is unnecessary to distort what we say in this way. Availability means availability at the same price.

Order! Did the hon. member say that the hon. member had distorted?

Yes, and I withdraw it. I meant that he had misrepresented it. I want to emphasize that the whole idea of labour control becomes nonsensical if one does not determine the availability of other labour. One cannot say that one limits the labour force to ten Bantu if other labour is not available. In order to control labour the availability of labour must be one of the main factors in the determination.

I hope the Minister will give us an explanation on this point. The hon. member for Heilbron has referred to 30,000 Pondos in the Zululand constituency and he has referred to 30,000 Shangaans who are employed there. That is 60,000 people who are so employed, and he has referred to an unidentified number of unemployed Asiatics. I think we are now entitled to ask the Minister to make a statement. Unless this is going to develop into a lengthy wrangle, I appeal to the Minister to tell us whether he supports the point of view of the hon. member for Heilbron or not. This matter cannot be treated lightly seeing that we are dealing with 60,000 Natives employed in one of the key industries of South Africa. I gather from the Minister’s nod that he is prepared to make a statement on the point, in which case I shall gladly sit down.

I should like to give hon. members opposite the assurance that with the implementation of this section the availability of labour will be a factor. That is precisely what the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) also said. There are two concepts between which we must distinguish. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) to-day, and particularly yesterday, referred to the suitability of labour. Yesterday the hon. member argued that we should take into consideration the suitability of the workers who have to be considered. I just want to put it this way, that the body controlling it must consider the availability of labour and in addition they must also take into consideration the non-Bantu labour in the area, but if that non-Bantu labour, for economic or other reasons, cannot be regarded as being available there is every justification for bringing Bantu labour there from elsewhere by way of recruitment.

May I ask a question? Does the Minister think that the Indians there are available to work on the sugar plantations?

I cannot say whether they are or not. It may vary from time to time or from area to area, but the bodies which have to decide on that are responsible bodies and they must take into consideration whether or not non-Bantu labour is available. If they find that for economic or other reasons such labour is not available, then it simply is not available and labour has to be recruited. And now hon. members opposite should remember that we are particularly in favour of labour being recruited. Those hon. members blame us when we say that we favour migrant labour. If labour cannot be obtained locally for the sugar farmers, either Bantu or non-Bantu labour, we have no objection to labour being recruited elsewhere to come and work there. That is quite in line with our policy, but in other stages of this debate those hon. members criticized us for having such a policy. Therefore to supply the sugar growers with labour on that basis is quite in line with our policy and it will be applied if it is justified, as it probably has been justified hitherto. I hope I have now satisfied the hon. member for South Coast.

I still have to reply to the argument of the hon. member for Zululand in regard to the availability of labour. If I understood the hon. member correctly, he said that the suitability of the non-Bantu labour should be taken into consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is expecting too much of this body to do that. Why should this body go into the matter whether the non-Bantu labour available there is suitable or not? We do not even expect this body to investigate the suitability of Bantu labour, so why should we expect them to go into the suitability of non-Bantu labour? We expect them to go into the availability of the Bantu and the non-Bantu labour there, but it is really not the task of a body like this to go into the suitability of labour. That is expecting too much.

This is becoming a joke. This board will have the right to make determinations and now the Deputy Minister tells us that it will depend on the availability of Bantu labour for the sugar industry, irrespective of the fact that they can work with sugar and know everything about it, that they have the constitution to work in those areas and can stand the heat, and that they want to go and work there.

Can the hon. member give us an assurance as to whether those Pondos now working there on the sugar farms were tested as to whether they were suitable for that work or not?

I can reply to that. There is nothing to keep them there. They have come there of their own accord and they can leave any day they like. If any one of them finds that he is unsuitable, or his master finds that he is unsuitable, he is told to go and he does not have to stay there. But he does not go through a labour bureau.

Order! The question of suitability is not under discussion under this clause, only availability.

Hear, hear!

On a point of order, may I draw your attention to sub-sec. (c), where provision is made for the promulgation of regulations which, inter alia, provide for the principles to be followed, which may include the availability of Bantu labour. May I suggest that when one reads that with the preceding two lines which deal with the powers, functions and duties of such boards and the principles to be followed, that may well embody the principle of suitability.

No, only availability is under discussion now, not suitability.

On a point of order, surely when discussing the availability of labour one must consider whether it is suitable.

Order! I have ruled that suitability is not relevant now.

In regard to the availability of labour, this particular clause deals with the regulations which must be made in regard to the labour tenants control board and the Bantu labour control board, and it has been the principle of this hon. Minister to do away with labour tenants. Under this particular clause regulations are to be made under which they can get rid of labour tenants. Now in regard to the availability of labour, in the Newcastle district, from a recent speech made by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education, the Department is building a Bantu village of 10,000 houses, which will mean that there will be labour available to that district and to the surrounding districts, including Utrecht. There is also a further site-and-service village to be erected. Now under these regulations those two districts can perhaps fall into this sausage machine and the Minister can tell the people in Newcastle and Utrecht: “You no longer need labour tenants because of the availability of labour, and you will be able to draw your labour from that area.” That will also apply to the Utrecht district where I farm. Sir, I have said from the beginning that this is a regimentation of the farmers in South Africa—and here I refer to this clause as well as the preceding clauses. The sugar farmers of Zululand are to be told what labour is available to them. They will be told, “Whatever that labour is, you will have to take it and you will have to be satisfied, be they efficient or not.” Sir, you now realize what I have been saying all along. This Minister, who is not the Minister of Economic Affairs, is taking the lot of the White economy into his hands, because under these rules and regulations which he is able to lay down under the various clauses and under this clause he can see to it that the labour which is made available to a farmer is not the kind of labour that the farmer himself would choose; it will be the kind of labour that this Minister chooses. Sir, we are opposed to this clause.

I am worried about this clause as it applies to the Western Cape. Although I do not come from the Western Cape I know a little bit about the situation. The position is that it is the declared policy of the Government to replace Bantu labour in the Western Cape with Coloured labour. The position as I understand it at the moment is that you have something like 114,000 registered Bantu service contracts in the Western Province and an unemployment figure running into very nearly 60,000 as far as Coloured people are concerned; that is approximately half the number of registered Bantu contracts. As far as the 60,000 Coloured people are concerned I want to know whether a determination has been made. The Deputy Minister has just said that it is not his job to find out whether that labour is suitable, and I do not propose to discuss that at greater length, but has a determination been made? For example, how many of the 60,000 available Coloured labour are women and children? We do not know; I do not know and I cannot get the figures. But following on what the hon. member for Heilbron said, if you are going to take just bare figures and entirely disregard suitability, how are you going to relate the 60,000 unemployed Coloured people in the allocation of labour for farms? Because the hon. member for Heilbron and the hon. the Deputy Minister have both made it perfectly clear that that figure of 60,000 must be taken into consideration in allocating labour to each and every farmer. You can imagine how absurd this position is going to be. First of all, you are going to try to replace 114,000 Bantu with 60,000 Coloureds, and, secondly, it is obvious that the break-down of the 60,000 Coloureds is not going to be taken into account so you do not know how many of the 60,000 are in fact going to be suitable and available for farming purposes—and that is what we are considering here at the moment—so how is the Minister going to determine this ratio which has to be taken into consideration when even the figure of 60,000 which is available in the Western Province does not mean a thing in relation to farming? That is the point I want to make and I would like some clarification in this regard.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 36,

I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the definition of “labour tenant” which appears at page 53 of the Bill under paragraph (c). I do so because it seems to me that there is some doubt about the efficacy of this definition. We all know what a labour tenant is. A labour tenant is a man who in return for the right to live on a farm has to render certain services. That is one aspect of the nature of a labour tenant which does not appear in this definition. That is the first query I have in this regard, and I raise this because it may be that the Deputy Minister will not be satisfied with this definition after he has heard what I have to say. Firstly there is no reference to the obligation to render services even as a quid pro quo of the right to live on the property. That is the first fault I have to find with it. The second difficulty is this: In the fourth line of this definition the words “other than a Bantu rendering service under a contract of service” have been inserted. The new definition of labour tenant reads—

There is no reference at all, nor was there in the previous definition, to the fact that what a labour tenant really is in fact is a man who is allowed to live in a certain place because he renders certain services to the owner. That does not appear anywhere in this definition. Secondly, even a labour tenant is a man who works under a contract of service, and yet this definition excludes Bantu rendering services under a contract of service. It seems to me that this definition, if it is to become workable, requires attention of some sort with regard to those two aspects, unless the hon. the Deputy Minister can give us a reason as to why it is in this form. It seems to me not to fulfil the purpose for which it has been inserted.

I am satisfied with the definition as it stands here. I have listened attentively to the hon. member. I will go into the matter again and amend the definition in the Other Place, if necessary, but I do not think it is necessary.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 37,

I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister at the very outset that we are opposed to this clause.

That does not surprise me.

That does not surprise him, but when he has heard what I have to say I think he will be surprised, and I think by the time I have finished I will have earned some recruits from that side of the House. [Laughter.] Sir, I hear cynical laughter from that side. It is interesting to have a look at the description of these two released areas. I am going to start with the released area No. 53 first. The hon. the Deputy Minister surely knows that this was not a completely encircled area; that it is only by virtue of the fact that the Native Affairs Department bought two farms that were neither scheduled nor released but that fell within the ambit of Chapter IV, which made it possible for him to buy them, that he was able completely to close off the whole of the area in question. If the Deputy Minister looks at the Schedule itself he will see that it is most explicit; it includes every farm that it is expected to include within the boundaries of the new released areas. When I come to the other area, what is the position there? The Government deliberately set up a new released area which was not adjacent to a Native area, nor was there a Native farm anywhere in the locality. It was done, however, for a specific purpose and that was for the setting up of the Cyril Lord factory. The Government took a piece of ground as far down as Arnoldton and going up as far as the Ntlabati River. The hon. member for Heilbron ought to know that. However, they then set up this Black area which was not adjacent to any Native area or any scheduled area. The hon. the Minister now proposes to buy a number of farms, and the reason that is given for it is that they form a wedge between the one scheduled area and other Native reserves. Well, if that forms a wedge, then somebody has a very awkward idea of what the shape of a wedge is. The hon. the Minister wants to take a section of farms on the west bank of the Buffalo River, which the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development gave us the assurance he would not touch because they form a portion of the catchment area of the Buffalo River. He wants to go on with that and he wants to go into the Chilamna Valley; he wants to take all the farms known as the Welcomewood in the Runzani area. The only reason for this so-called wedge is that the hon. the Minister wants to link up from Arnoldton to Mount Coke. There is no such thing as a wedge; it does not exist. That is what the hon. the Minister proposes to do. Now, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why in the description he names all the farms in the Punzana or Welcomewood area, namely 29, 44, 45, 42, 30 and 317, all of which are farms which the Minister of Bantu Administration gave us the assurance he would not touch and against the purchase of which there was the greatest objection by the Buffalo Catchment Association and by every other association in the area, including the regional association? In the description which is given not a single one of those farms is named, within the boundaries set out in the Schedule. Those farms are 26, 27, 28, 22, 308, 102, 23 and 24. May I ask the hon. the Minister why those farms are not included when the descriptions given in all other instances includes every farm falling within the boundaries named? I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we disagree with this clause because the Minister has no right to buy these scheduled farms. They are merely being bought for the extension of Native areas and, what is more, it is bringing about a ribbon that cuts completely across the European areas in the Border District. There is a gradual encroachment here—the creeping paralyses that we have spoken about for years —that brings the Native areas right away from the western side of the corridor to close the corridor. Does the hon. the Minister realize that he is cutting right across the national road? That is closed off by Native reserves, and the access from King William’s Town to East London across the Ridge road is also closed by Native reserves through Mount Coke. Whether he likes it or not, those farms that he proposes to purchase within the Buffalo catchment are farms which the Minister of Bantu Administration assured us he would not purchase. I want to assure the Deputy Minister that we take great objections to these Schedules.

I cannot remember when and where the hon. the Minister gave the assurance referred to by the hon. member in regard to farms in the catchment area of the Buffalo River. I can well remember that those matters have been discussed here before, and I also clearly remember what the hon. the Minister said on that occasion, namely, that this question of the catchment area of the Buffalo River would receive careful attention and that the Minister would particularly take it into consideration when purchasing land or, as is the case here, when releasing further areas. But I cannot remember any assurance being given that never under any circumstances would it be incorporated in the Bantu areas. The hon. member will recall that this subject was also discussed two years ago when the question of releasing those areas near East London was under discussion, and then the same assurance was given. In view of the fact that inside that area another big Bantu town is being established, the hon. the Minister gave the assurance that the best available technical knowledge would be utilized to ensure that the building taking place there would not harm those areas and pollute the river. That is the undertaking the hon. the Minister gave, viz. that he would consider these matters thoroughly, but I cannot recall the Minister saying that under no circumstances would there be such purchases or releasing of areas within the catchment area of the Buffalo River.

Then in regard to the description of the farms there, I just want to tell him that it is not necessary to mention every farm. We work on the basis of the borders of the farms, according to the description given by the Surveyor-General. We get these descriptions of the new borders of the proposed released areas from the office of the Surveyor-General. We set to work, in terms of their description, all along the borders of the farms. There is no sinister motive in not mentioning certain of those farms. If they clearly fall inside that line in terms of the description of the Surveyor-General, then it is obvious to everybody, just as it was to the hon. member, that those farms would fall inside the area. But I understand the standpoint of the hon. member and of the Opposition in regard to this type of thing; we have already discussed it previously and I know how they feel about it.

The hon. the Deputy Minister tells me that it is not necessary to include all these farms.

No.

Surely the numbers of these farms should be included in any Schedule so that we can know what is included in the Schedule. Sir. I am not going to waste the time of the Committee reading out the description which is given here. I happen to know the country and I know it well. Look at the description that is given of the Umdanzane area, it occupies more than half of this page. Here is an enormous piece of country comprising 11,000 morgen and eight farms are being excluded. Why are they being excluded? Who knows the description if they are excluded? It merely indicates that the boundary goes from the north-eastern portion of Mount Coke down to the centre of the Buffalo River and from there down to Needs Camp, and from Needs Camp in a southerly direction over to Welcomewood, where the farms to be absorbed are then named by number, leaving all the other farms completely out. Sir, surely that is wrong. Why is it done? I accept what the Deputy Minister tells me, namely, that it was not done for sinister motives. But why is it done? I again raise objection to the purchase of those farms. Let me tell the hon. the Deputy Minister this: Long before he took office, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development met a deputation from King William’s Town in his office, and he gave that deputation an undertaking that those farms would not be touched. What the hon. the Deputy Minister is referring to is a discussion on the floor of this House in respect of the establishment of the new township at Umdanzane two years ago. There was a lengthy discussion with regard to the pollution of the waters of the Buffalo River. The Minister then indicated that the engineers had been able to cope with the whole situation. This has nothing to do with it whatsoever. These are Buffalo catchment farms on the south-western side of the Buffalo. I want to assure the Deputy Minister that we object to it, and even at this late stage I think I might reasonably ask the Minister to exclude those farms, because this is going to cause one of the greatest upsets to farming which we have had in that part of the country.

The hon. member for King William’s Town says that the Buffalo Catchment Area Association has raised objections. I regret to inform him that he is not au fait with matters. The Buffalo Catchment Area Association did have objections, which they have since withdrawn.

I know about that.

If the hon. member knows about it, then why does he mention it here? Even though the Minister gave an undertaking, why should that undertaking still stand when those people have withdrawn their objections?

May I put a question?

No. the hon. member can speak again. I have only ten minutes. Those people withdrew their objections. If the Minister gave such an undertaking and those people withdrew their objections, as they in fact last year did, then that undertaking falls away. Therefore in fact the hon. member has no objection and he relies on a body which has no objections either. He knows that this body withdrew its objections.

I now come to the hon. member’s other objection. He asks why certain farms were specifically excluded by number. The position is that when an area is described it is described from beacon to beacon and from point to point. We do not specifically mention all the farms within that area. We only describe the area which is declared to be a released area; we describe its outer boundaries. The farms in the middle are not all mentioned. The fact that the farms inside are not mentioned specifically does not mean that they will not be purchased or that they will fall outside the area. The area is described by merely indicating the outer boundaries.

Sir, I would like to reply to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). I was well aware and am now aware of the fact that the Buffalo Catchment Association withdrew its objection. But how did that come about? It came about under pressure of the Bantu Administration Department for the purchase of their land. Who was responsible for the withdrawal of the objection? Sir, I have had lengthy discussions with the secretary of the Buffalo Catchment Area, and let me assure you that this is a correct statement: That objection was withdrawn firstly because of the pressure and secondly because the chairman of the Buffalo Catchment Association is an extremely interested party, owning one of those farms right in the middle. That particular individual came along and indicated that he had been offered R120,000 by the Bantu Administration Department for that farm. Who would not be induced to sell? That was the reason why they withdrew their objection. But there is still objection notwithstanding any withdrawal by the Buffalo Catchment Association. Surely, Sir, the Buffalo Catchment Association has not got the last word? Those people who will now abut on Native territory are equally interested. Has the regional organization recommended the purchase of those farms? I am giving the hon. the Deputy Minister facts.

You did not mention the fact that they withdrew their objection.

I admit they withdrew their objection and I gave you the reason why. If the hon. member for Heilbron does not want to accept it, it is fair enough; suspicious minds work that way. I shall leave him at that. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that he is doing an injustice to that section of the farmers in that part of the country.

I know the area referred to by the previous speaker very well. I also want to object to this clause. In 1948 a map was prepared by the Group Areas Board. It covered the whole of that area which is a very big area. It was intended to comprise the future Ciskei Bantustan. In view of the fact that that map gave a very good idea to the public in that vicinity of how vast an area was to be brought in—that map was published in the Daily Despatch, and in all Eastern Province newspapers—an uproar was caused and objections were lodged from all sides to the scheme. Apparently because it was before the 1948 election the then Minister of Bantu Affairs had the whole map withdrawn and stated it was unrealistic. If it was unrealistic then it is unrealistic to-day. The fact is that the land which is now to be purchased in area 52, which has been described by the previous speaker, stretches down the west bank of the Buffalo River to Arnoldton which is on the east bank. It has obviously been designed to carry out the idea of bringing the borders to the industries where the Government has announced its policy as being one of bringing industries to the borders. The area on the east bank was originally designed for a Bantu township. All the details were complete; it was to have been a municipal township of East London. The area has been taken over by the Bantu Affairs Department as a Bantu township. Now, in order to carry out Government policy of linking up the homelands in one piece, this so-called wedge is being put in. That is obviously the reason for it. As it stands now it is just a question of giving away South Africa bit by bit. This land was developed by four generations of mainly German settlers. They developed it from wild bush; they spent a lot of money and hard labour on it. It is now to be taken away and handed over to the Blacks.

I want to draw the attention of hon. members opposite in particular and the attention of those outside this House to this fact that by this method the Government is stealthily handing South Africa bit by bit to the Blacks. It is being done bit by bit so that the public will not realize the magnitude of what is being done. We are giving South Africa away here. One step leads to the next. One piece of land that is given away leads to another piece of land being given away. As the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) pointed out, when one farm was bought the rest all came into the market. The people were prepared to withdraw their objections for very obvious reasons. That is going on bit by bit all over South Africa.

We have been told by members on the other side of the House that they prefer eight Bantustans to eight representatives in this House.

Order!

I shall come back to the clause. Sir. We are now in the process of developing these eight Bantustans. This piece of land is to be added on to the Ciskei Bantustan and that is one of the reasons why I object to this clause. Once you have handed this land over to the Blacks it is theirs for ever. If you put Black representatives in this House that can always be adjusted. But once you have given this land away you have given it away for ever.

Order!

I want to say at once that I agree with the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren). While from the point of view of the Surveyor-General and those who are used to reading diagrams and maps the description of the properties in the Schedules is probably the commonplace method of describing such properties, nevertheless I think it is undesirable when Schedules are placed before Parliament that they should be in this form. I agree with him entirely that we should have a clear statement of the properties that are involved. I go further and I say that it should be a matter of principle with the Minister in charge of a Bill that comes before us which has Schedules of this character, to give us, in respect of each Schedule, the precise reason why the Government is taking these properties from White ownership and handing them over to the Bantu. I think every Schedule should be explained in detail by the Minister concerned. It is not nearly good enough for the Minister simply to say, in reply to the hon. member for King William’s Town, “I do not think any promise was made in regard to that land; I remember what took place in this House; as far as I can remember no such promise was given”. In the one case alone nearly 48,000 acres are involved. But the Minister gives us no reason whatsoever why this land should be taken from White ownership and handed over to the Bantu in terms of the relative Schedules. I repeat, I think we should have a detailed explanation every time. I think it is a point which we on this side of the House will take at every opportunity; we shall demand from the Government, in respect of every farm they take, why they are taking it.

Why do you not read the White Paper? It is part of the record.

If the White Paper is part of the record then it is a very inadequate record. But that is not the point. The White Paper is a separate memorandum. We are dealing with the Minister who is voicing the policy of the Government. When we get schedules of this magnitude, I say we are entitled to demand from the Minister that he justifies every single White farm that he takes and hands over to the Bantu and he should justify it here in Parliament. Until that is done, Sir, we are going to protest and when it is done we are still going to protest. We are utterly and bitterly opposed to this piece-meal eating up of White South Africa under the Government’s policy of handing it over to the Bantu. This is a classic example in front of us. And the Minister has not got a word to say in defence of his own Government’s policy. He cannot give us one reason why they are taking these particular properties including the one outside Pietermaritzburg. What has been happening in regard to that property? There was illegal and irregular settling of Bantu on that property under this Government. The Government did absolutely nothing to remedy the position so they said: “Let us take it over, proclaim it a released area and hand it over to the Bantu; there are so many Bantu to-day that we cannot shift them”. The position got hopelessly out of control through their own ineptitude and lack of control and refusal to do anything about it. Now that they cannot cope with the problem they say: “Let us take the land away from the Whites and hand it over to the Bantu, because there are so many Bantu in any case that we cannot handle the situation”. Yet the Minister has not got a word to say about it. Perhaps the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell) will tell us why the land in this schedule is being taken away from White ownership and declared a released area. We demand an explanation from the Minister in regard to every farm that is being taken away. And we want the farms named so that the people concerned will know that their farm is now placed in one of the schedules to the Native Trust and Land Act.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) surely knows more about these matters than emerged from the short speech he made. The hon. member ought to know that these areas which are being declared as released areas, or which are being purchased without being declared to be released areas, are acquired for a variety of reasons. They are acquired to accommodate Bantu who live elsewhere in Black spots; they are acquired because Bantu have already congregated there to a large extent, Bantu who fit in there very well, and which therefore makes it desirable to include the area in a homeland; they are acquired because a Bantu town perhaps has to be established there, or because it is necessary properly to round off the Bantu areas. Those are the categories of reasons. Such land is also required in order to settle squatters in the White areas. There is no such thing as acquiring a specific area just for the first category of reasons I mentioned, or just for the fourth category. It often happens that Bantu falling in all four categories I mentioned can be settled there. The hon. member should not expect us to be able to tell the House precisely: Bantu man so-and-so and Bantu woman so-and-so, plus those four or five children, at present residing on sub-division No. so-and-so of Farm No. so-and-so in District No. so-and-so will go to the released area No. 52. We just cannot give such specified information beforehand.

You can do better than that.

I have already done quite well enough, Sir. Let us look at this description of these released areas on page 24 of the memorandum accompanying the Bill. There hon. members will see that the reasons are summarized. In the case of Area No. 52, it is said that this is a block of farms which are squeezed in there. In other words, the reason is to round it off. In the last line of this description it is also stated that it was purchased for rounding-off purposes.

Who squeezed them in?

It is no use playing ping-pong with words here. Those are the facts, and the hon. member who knows that area knows that it is true. It is also stated that it is being purchased for the settlement of Bantu, in other words, the settlement of Bantu who at present live in Black spots elsewhere, or who live elsewhere as squatters, or for the settlement of Bantu in a Bantu area for whatever reasons. In connection with Area No. 52 the reasons are given succinctly. I am not going to repeat it word for word. Surely it is not necessary for me to explain these matters as if this were a kindergarten. We have the same position in regard to the description of Areas Nos. 53, 54 and 55. In regard to the area near Pietermaritzburg, it is stated here that it is being purchased for the establishment of a Bantu town. I can give the hon. member the assurance immediately that the area near Pietermaritzburg is also being acquired for the settlement of other Bantu who at present live outside the area concerned in Black spots or as squatters. It is not being obtained only for the establishment of a Bantu town. Hon. members know what the explanation is. We do not withhold any information from them. It appears in succinct form in the memorandum.

Sir, the hon. the Minister gets up here with an air of injured innocence.

I beg your pardon.

Who are you to judge?

I was a Judge of the High Court of Parliament, so I was a Judge at one time. The hon. the Deputy Minister tells us to read the White Paper. He says the White Paper tells us everything we want to know about the areas that are to be handed over.

Concisely.

Yes, the Minister said in a concise form. That is my complaint; it is too concise. I want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister who was responsible for forming that wedge. There was no wedge before. This Government did it last year or the year before last. This is part of a scheme. The policy is to establish industries on the borders of the reserves. What has happened here? The Government has found a spot suitable for industry and they are now taking the reserves to the industry. That is what the Government is doing. But when you read the White Paper you do not get that impression. All it says is that there is a White spot that must be got rid of. As the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) said a moment ago, they would gradually take over the whole country in that way. It can be done gradually. That is what we are objecting to. We want to know where the final boundaries are going to be. That is why we object to the schedule. There is a continual encroachment on White land by adding a schedule every year, The hon. member for Heilbron said that those bodies who had objected before had withdrawn their objection. Once the Government starts buying up land for Bantu occupation, objections are withdrawn, and for one simple reason. We experienced it in Umtata. The prices offered are so good that people rush to sell their property.

You said we were giving it away.

But you are giving it away. If the Minister gives it away, it does not follow that the farmers are giving it away. The farmers are doing very well. But the land is given from the White sector to the Black sector and we do not know where that Black sector is going to end. That is our objection to this method of procedure. That is why we shall oppose this clause.

This is nothing else but the determination of borders.

It does not determine borders.

Listen to what I am saying. I do not say it determines borders; I say it is a determination of borders. I would have expected the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) to get up here to-day and shout: Hurrah! Now we are getting what we want; now border determinations are at least being made in this respect. They have always insisted on that, but to-day they object to this clause. The hon. member for South Coast demands of the Minister that he should give particulars of every one of these farms and give the reasons why each one was purchased.

Quite correct.

I think the hon. the Minister has replied thoroughly on that point, as well as anyone could have been expected to. One cannot give a better reply. But are the hon. members opposite not very good at drawing maps? How long has this Bill been lying on the Table, Sir? Why have they not drawn a map for themselves as they have done in the past and said: “According to these provisions, this is what the map looks like”? Then they would not have needed to ask the Minister for all these particulars to-day.

I think hon. members opposite have to-day stepped into their own trap. The hon. member for South Coast did not support the objections raised by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren). The objection of the hon. member for South Coast was that the Minister did not give the reasons and particulars in respect of each farm. Nobody knows those reasons better than that hon. member himself and those other hon. members who supported him. They know that not a single borderline is moved without the greatest measure of discussion and consultation with the people living there—the Bantu and the Whites and all interested parties. The hon. members know that this is always done. They know that this matter did not have its origin in the fertile brain of one individual. Seeing that there were continuous and lengthy consultations with the persons and bodies concerned, do hon. members opposite now want to pretend that anyone would have been more capable of indicating where these lines should be drawn than those local bodies? The hon. member for South Coast will have a case the day he is able to allege here that the Minister is coming along with a proposal for the incorporation of land over and above the 7,250,000 morgen. Until he is able to do that, he has no case at all. When we implement something in connection with which they always attack the Minister, they should not advance such artificial arguments as they have used to-day.

Just before this clause is disposed of, I just want to put it on record that in regard to Area No. 54, in the constituency of Queenstown, I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister, the members of the Bantu Affairs Commission and the officials of his Department for the lengthy and very thorough investigation they made in regard to these matters in my constituency. Those people were consulted repeatedly. All aspects of the case were thoroughly investigated. This step was not taken lightly. The way in which this step was taken gives me confidence that if in future action is taken in this way we need have no fear for the land of White South Africa. This action was taken with the greatest care and circumspection. In so far as my constituency is concerned, this is an utterly logical step; it rounds things off. This step affords the greatest satisfaction to the people living in that area. If the further problems in regard to the purchase of land in my constituency are handled in this thorough manner, I can say that I will be very satisfied and happy. I just wanted to record my appreciation of what everybody did.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he is satisfied that the majority of the inhabitants of the Queenstown area are satisfied and happy in regard to this piece of land which is being given away?

Clause put and, the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 39,

Coming to Clause 39, we leave the Trust Act of 1936 and we come to the Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act of 1945. In Clause 39 we are to deal with the definitions which are substituted in that Act, and it is on the definition of “authorized officer” that I would like to ask certain questions of the hon. the Minister. I would like in the first place the Minister to enlighten us as to whether an authorized officer has a function other than that set out in Section 29, viz., to assist in the arrest of idle or disorderly persons. That is the only one I have been able to spot up to now. But that nevertheless is a very important function—the question of arrest of idle or disorderly persons—and I am wondering first of all whether the hon. Minister will tell us, since in page 57, line 29, there is a reference to a residual class of persons who could be authorized officers, namely—

1. (1) Any member of any class of persons specified by the Minister in a notice in the Gazette, whom he has in mind there; what class he has in mind to include as an additional class of persons who could be authorized officers? Then I would like to ask him what it is that has led to the opening up of the post of “authorized officer” to Natives? Is it that there has been a shortage of authorized officers, or is it intended to make further avenues of employment open to the Native people? Would he tell us how many authorized officers there are at present and how many there would be if this amendment were accepted? I would be glad to know what the reasons are behind this particularly change.

The point I want to raise here is the obvious change, if not in principle at any rate so far as the practice is concerned, in regard to what constitutes an authorized officer, starting from line 55 on page 55. The powers of an authorized officer have been set out at length, and a very large number of people are set out here. I am not going to read them out, but for the purpose of this Bill a large number of people will be authorized officers. But what is significant is that in such a number of cases, three categorical cases, where in the past the official concerned was a European, the word “European” has now been deliberately removed, leaving it just “any person”. In the first place it is a member of the South African Police or of the South African Railways and Harbour Police under (d); otherwise it is under (e) any person appointed by an urban local authority. … When one comes to (k), it is “any person authorized by the Minister to demand the production of such documents under the Native Labour Regulation Act, 1911, or any regulation there under, or under this Act or the regulation as may be specified”, and then finally, we get an all-embracing sub-section (1) “any member of any class of persons specified by the Minister in a notice in the Gazette”, I rise simply to ask the hon. the Minister if he will tell us in view of these changes, and particularly in regard to (1) what has the Minister in mind in regard to an “authorized officer”? As I say, there are widespread powers, far-reaching powers which an authorized officer may exercise and it is quite clear that as a result of this clause, the Minister anticipates appointing non-Europeans as authorized officers for the purposes of this Bill. May we ask the Minister what he has got in mind, because “any member of any class of persons” seems to run the whole gamut of the population of South Africa.

The position is not quite as bad as the hon. member for South Coast paints it. The hon. member will see that quite a number of groups are mentioned and practically all of them are examples of who may be an authorized officer, and then there are those under (1), to which the hon. member as well as the hon. member for Pinelands referred. I just want to say that this is inserted to cover certain difficulties, because we cannot foresee whether other officials will perhaps also be required for the same type of work. I want to try to just take a few examples out of the air. It may, for example, be necessary at certain places and under certain circumstances which may arise to make use of, say, the military police to do certain work, and then we do not want to be in the position of first having to come to Parliament in order to add a new sub-paragraph which says “military police”. Then it may perhaps also be necessary to make use of traffic officers at a certain place. Then it will again be necessary to come to Parliament to add a subsection to include traffic officers. That is why such general terms are used, to give the Minister the right to mention still further categories of people, and the Minister will not do so in an underhand manner, but by way of public notice, because he will have to publish it in the Government Gazette.

Then I also want to reply to the other question of the hon. member for South Coast in regard to the omission of the word “White”. The hon. member asks whether it is the intention also to appoint Bantu as authorized officers? My reply is, frankly: “Yes, in certain cases where it is desirable.” But it will not be done in all cases. I want to point out to the hon. member—and that partly replies to the matters raised by the hon. member for Pinelands—that authorized officers may, for example, also be appointed in the urban Bantu residential areas in terms of the locations regulations to do certain inspection work there. It is desirable that certain inspections should be done for various reasons in regard to which we need not dilate, and that it should rather be done by a Bantu than by a White man. But the Act says that it must be an authorized officer who does the inspection, and if the provision remains in the Act that it must be a White authorized officer, then we must send a White man under those circumstances, whereas it may be more desirable to have a Bantu making the inspection. Therefore we want to leave the door open so as to be able to use Bantu to do this work in cases where that is justified.

Now I have partly replied to the question raised by the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member asks what provisions prescribe where authorized officers may be used. That can be done not only in the case mentioned by the hon. member himself, but also in terms of the Urban Areas Act, Section 38 (3) (c). and in terms of the location regulations and other regulations which may be drawn up, and I think also in regard to inspections in connection with identity books in terms of the Identity Book Act. I have now replied to the hon. member. The other question in regard to (1) I have already replied to. The hon. member for Pinelands asked why we wanted more authorized officers. It is not because we want to create posts, but because there are certain requirements, as I have indicated, which must be provided for, and as I have said, in certain cases Bantu will be used. I cannot now guess what the actual number of authorized officers is or will be, but the hon. member can well imagine that it may amount to quite a few. I think in South Africa there are several hundreds of local authorities, almost 600 if I use the term “local authority” in its broad sense, as it may be used in terms of the Urban Areas Act, and all these local authorities may have authorized officers. There can therefore be quite a number of them in the country.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 45,

I want to deal with subsection (d) dealing with the penalties. The subsection lays down—

The hon. Minister knows the attitude of our party towards minimum fines. We are opposed to minimum fines in principle and we believe that a discretion should be left to the courts, and we will oppose this clause for that reason.

I wonder if the hon. Deputy Minister will indicate why it is that he has found it necessary to increase the penalties and to provide for a minimum penalty. Perhaps the hon. Minister can give us some explanation for this.

I think that should be clear to the hon. member. It happens that people enter the urban Bantu residential areas, people who should not be there and that is the reason why it has been felt that the sanctions against them should be a little more severe than up to now.

Surely that is not a complete answer. The hon. Deputy Minister says that a lot of these people just come in. Who is he trying to get at? Is he trying to get at the Natives themselves, or is he trying to get at the employers and the various other people who are associated with these people? If you look at the Act, the offence which is referred to, in Section (9)—

This is in a location as well as on other land. In other words, it could also be a person who goes to visit someone and is found upon some other premises, some ordinary domestic premises. There are difficulties, not only for the Bantu concerned, but difficulties in respect of the person whose premises are entered upon. Perhaps the hon. Minister will give us a further reply, because persons who commit this offence may also be the owners and occupiers, the persons in control of various premises. They can commit these offences without the knowledge of the owner. Surely in those circumstances a minimum fine is not the sort of thing to provide. Surely circumstances can and do arise when the magistrate should have the discretion in order to determine from case to case whether or not the owner could or should or might have known about the presence of such persons in those premises, whether or not for example the Bantu himself might not in circumstances find himself obliged to enter in or upon certain premises. One must remember that in dealing with this Act the hon. Minister is giving (of necessity he has got to if he has got to implement this Bill) discretions to a large number of people who are minor officials, and it is no good the hon. Minister retorting that they would not charge a person like that. They do charge people like that. You look at the number of pass offences which are brought before the courts every year, and now you take away from the courts a discretion.

Your basis is all wrong.

Perhaps the hon. Minister will then put me right, and I hope he will indicate why it is necessary to take away the discretion from the magistrates. If the persons concerned are Bantu, they can be brought before Bantu commissioners if they are tried for these offences, and these are persons in the employ of the Minister’s Department. If anyone else is brought before a magistrate, or in the case of a Bantu perhaps before a Bantu commissioner …

But you are quite wrong.

Perhaps the hon. member for Heilbron will explain why it is that the Department has lost faith in its own officials, in the Native commissioners. The Minister does not want the Native commissioners to have any discretion at all to determine what circumstances warrant what punishment. That is the point the hon. Deputy Minister has to answer, the point raised by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, namely why that discretion is taken away. You are giving discretion to almost any sort of official, minor officials even, but when you come to a judicial officer, an man much more responsible than an ordinary minor official, the hon. Minister takes the discretion away from him. Why?

The hon. member for Durban (North) says a person may perhaps unknowingly commit an offence by entering an area which he is not allowed to enter. In the first instance, I merely want to say in reply that a person who wants to enter an area, a Bantu town, for example, can enter it lawfully if he has a permit, and I think it is very wrong to allege that a person does not know that he has entered such an area. The hon. member also argued that the magistrate, the person who has to impose the penalty, should have a discretionary right in connection with the fine and the term of imprisonment he may impose. That is the reason why he asks that that should be laid down in the Bill. I take it that there are three categories of persons which can commit an offence in this connection. There is the person who, without any serious ulterior motive, enters a Bantu area wrongfully. I think that person will always get away with a warning. But if that person persists and does so deliberately, then surely he should be punished. Then there is the second category of persons and they are the persons who want to trade or do business in that area and it is essential, of course, that they be punished according to law. Thirdly, we have those persons who enter a Bantu town with ulterior motives, persons who go there to make propaganda, White agitators, liberals, and that type of person, who only wants to make propaganda and incite the people. I think it is essential that the law-abiding Bantu should be protected in all these respects. That is why the punishment in respect of the first offence must already be severe and even more severe in respect of the second offence.

May I just clear up a misunderstanding. I do not think it is clear to hon. members opposite that the offence we are concerned with here can only be committed within an urban Bantu residential area, only within a town location. I do not think that is clear to the hon. member for Durban (North), but I do not hold that against him. “To err is human”, as the saying goes. Even the hon. member for Durban (North) can make a little mistake every now and then. Section 9 (9) (b) of the Urban Areas Act states clearly that it is an offence to enter a location, a Native township or a Native hostel without permission. It is only concerned with that. It is very clear. The people who enter are committing an offence. The hon. member must remember that only last year we made it possible for Bantu people freely to enter Native locations, hotels, etc., but White persons have to have a permit and they can easily obtain such a permit. Action must be taken against those who enter without a permit. Such a person will be brought before an ordinary court, not before a Bantu Affairs Commissioner.

But it may happen that you cannot obtain a permit after hours and the circumstances may be urgent. I think of a woman whose child is seriously ill and the husband must enter the area late at night.

He can enter freely.

Yes, but I could not take him there.

Oh!

Some people treat their servants as human beings and if it is 14 miles outside the city they may help him to get there. In that case it is extremely difficult to get a permit when the office of the Department of Bantu Administration is closed.

I cannot deal with the particular circumstances raised by the hon. member because I do not know what the circumstances were. I can. however, give the hon. member the assurance that in practice a White person who wants to go there lawfully can easily do so.

I accept the hon. Deputy Minister’s interpretation. It is quite right that it applies to locations. But the point that was raised by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories has not been answered by the hon. Deputy Minister, and it is this: You are providing extra penalties for the same offence, namely, going into a location without a permit from the manager of that area. The penalties are not just increased, but provision is made for a minimum penalty. Why does the hon. Deputy Minister want to take the discretion away from the judicial officer? That is the point raised.

I gave my reasons in my first explanation.

No. what the hon. Deputy Minister said was that there are a lot of people who go in, and he only wants to discourage them. The point is that he is taking away the discretion. Why?

People who want to go in are often “baster” communists.

What did you say?

You are very close to one.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Mossel Bay keeps calling me a crypto communist, a “baster” communist, and he says “you are very close to one”.

Order ! If the hon. member said so he should withdraw that.

The hon. member referred to people going into these places, and I said they were mostly “baster” communists,

I said “for instance ‘baster’ communists”.

And he added “You are very close to one”.

When she started arguing with me I said “you are very close to one”.

Order! The hon. member should withdraw that.

I withdraw.

Sir, when one is legislating for the behaviour of people, for the future behaviour of people, of individuals, one is quite unable to predict how people are going to behave in each particular circumstance. Now if someone did go into one of these locations at night, he might go in for a very good reason, he might go in for medical aid, for instance, or to fetch one of his relatives because some other relative is dying. There are a hundred-and-one different circumstances which obviously the Legislature should never attempt to define. Because the circumstances cannot be the same, the sentence should be left to the courts in each and every individual case. The hon. the Minister is not doing this, and he is not doing it in respect of the person best qualified to exercise discretion, namely, a judicial officer, and in some of these instances, as I said just now, the judicial officer is going to be a Bantu Affairs commissioner and he is a member of the hon. the Minister’s Department. He is giving discretion to a junior official but he will not give discretion to a qualified judicial officer who is a member of this Department. Why does the hon. Minister want to do that?

The hon. member keeps on talking about a Bantu Commissioner but no Bantu Commissioners come into the picture because the people affected here are White persons. A White person will not appear before a Bantu Commissioner for any offence he has committed. The hon. member ought to know that but apparently he does not know the law in that respect. We are therefore not dealing here with the discretion of a Bantu Commissioner but of a magistrate. What discretion is taken away from the magistrate? In the case of the first offence his discretion is not affected at all. He can warn and discharge him. There is no provision for a minimum penalty whatsoever. It is only in the case of the second offence that there is a minimum penalty. In the case of a second offence there is a minimum penalty he may impose. He referred to the case of a person who goes there to perform a medical service. He is well aware that doctors, for example, may enter under permit and they will see to it that they have a permit to go there if they know anything about the law. It often happens. It often happens in my little town, for example, that the medical officer has to go there. He then obtains a permit and he enters to visit the sick person. But supposing he omits to get such a permit or he has not the opportunity of getting one. Who will prosecute a medical officer who has entered for that purpose? No, the people who will be punished will only be those who do not have good reasons for entering.

How will you know it was for a good reason?

How will he know it? Because all the people are not as stupid as the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). Our law is not applied in such a stupid manner that we have to have legislation to cover all the impossible cases that hon. member can think about. The people will know how to act and they can also use their discretion and don’t tell me the police have no discretion. They know whom to prosecute. They will not prosecute a person who has had good reasons for entering. But apart from these you still have the public prosecutor who can also exercise his discretion. He too will decide whether or not to prosecute the person and then the magistrate can also exercise his discretion. Why must we make such a fuss over a minor matter like this?

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. Suzman dissenting).

On Clause 46,

I should like to take the Minister’s memory back to the second reading. This clause provides for the proclamation of prescribed areas. It provides in 9bis (2) that every urban area which is not already included in the prescribed area and every area proclaimed before the commencement of this Act shall be a prescribed area, which in general terms means that all our White urban areas will be prescribed areas. The White urban areas are prescribed areas. What is important about that is that a large number of clauses in this Bill deal with the establishment of administrative machinery, and they derive their position in our legislation from the fact that they operate in a prescribed area. Provision is made in this Bill in line 52 that the Minister may declare by proclamation any area outside the scheduled or a released area to be a prescribed area for the purposes of this Act. It can be a separate prescribed area, or it can form part of an existing prescribed area.

In the second reading debate the point was made that in terms of this clause the Minister could prescribe a rural area; farms could be prescribed in terms of this clause and they would then come under the administrative machinery set up in the earlier clauses. When that point was being debated I asked the Minister whether it was his intention to use this power, and if not, why was it here? The Minister said it was not his intention to prescribe any rural areas. I have checked up on my Hansard to make sure that that is correct. I pressed the matter again and the Minister repeated it. In his full reply the Minister went into it even further. In 9bis (1), on page 63, it says that where no urban local authority or other body exists in a prescribed area which is not an urban area, the Act and the regulations shall be administered in such area by the Bantu affairs commissioner. I want to suggest that if there is no local authority or any similar body which is referred to in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, when you give the authority to a Bantu affairs commissioner it would seem to imply that there is an intention to prescribe the rural area because quite obviously, if it is not a rural area, there will be some kind of local authority having jurisdiction. In passing, may I say that that reference to the Constitution Act—the language there is exactly the same language that we had in the old South Africa Act, and it refers to municipal institutions, the term used throughout the years by Provincial Administrations; they could make ordinances in respect of municipal institutions. The term used here is not “municipal institutions”, but it is referred to in this particular manner. Therefore I find it hard to believe that the Minister will invoke a Bantu affairs commissioner in an area which is not a rural area, but nevertheless the Minister has given us that assurance. I said at the time that I hoped there would be an amendment, and I now want to ask the Minister to move an amendment to make it clear that there is no intention to have a rural area prescribed, and so as to make it quite clear that notwithstanding the reference to a Bantu affairs commissioner a rural area will not be prescribed. I rely on the Minister’s promise and I now ask him to move the necessary amendment to make it clear that a rural area cannot be prescribed. I know that there is one snag, and that is in regard to mining and an accumulation of Bantu round about a mine. The Minister has dealt with that. I do not think that offers any difficulty because of the other provisions of the Act. They can be adequately dealth with now under the powers conferred on the Minister, without proclaiming a mining area to be a prescribed area. So I ask the Minister to make it clear that a rural area cannot be a prescribed area for purposes of this Act.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and numerous other members as well have raised this point on a previous occasion. I made a brief remark about it while he was talking. Subsequently I apologized for having made that remark and that was why I dealt with it more fully in my reply and I want to reiterate what I said. The object of the prescribed areas which we envisage is to attain the ideal position where a prescribed area will surround a centre where there is a local authority. The correct attitude to adopt is that centres which have local authorities will have prescribed areas around them. But I explained in addition that it should not be held against me for having said that farms would not be included. If there are farms or smallholdings near such a town they can be included in the prescribed area because they form part of a thickly populated complex. I then went a step further and stated that there may even be areas in the platteland where there was a large concentration of people, such as mining areas, and that control would consequently have to be exercised there. I even got the impression from the speech of the hon. member a few moments ago that he himself admitted that in such places where they did not have a local authority it might be necessary to exercise control as in an ordinary prescribed area. The question then arises who has to perform that function? I should like to give an example but I am really hesitant to do so because if I do give an example people will think that we only intend doing it in the case of that little town. I shall be far happier to give an example outside Natal. Last year we were concerned with a place in the Free State and to-day we are still trying to solve the problem there. There are numerous places in the Free State which look like towns but they do not have local authorities because they do not have peri-urban area boards in the Free State like they have in the Transvaal or health committees like they have in Natal. In other words, there is no body which can assist such a small place in its local management. Take the little town Vierfontein. It has a big power station; there is a railway line there and a concentration of Bantu but there is no local authority. The Bantu Affairs Commissioner will have to do the work there. There may be more such cases. It may not be necessary at all to declare Vierfontein a prescribed area but if that is the only solution it may be done. It covers cases such as those. Seeing that the hon. member has made such a fervent plea I want to give him the assurance that I shall give special attention to the matter and if it is necessary to make statutory provision in order to make the position more clear that can always be done in the Other Place. I shall especially again go into this in consultation with my legal advisers. I am reasonably satisfied that everything is in order but to pacify the hon. member I shall go further into the matter.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has now given an assurance to the hon. member for South Coast but my objections go much further than his. His objection is to farming areas becoming prescribed areas. Of course, I object to the whole basic idea of ever-widening circles of control over the lives of citizens born in this country. It seems to me that already all the urban areas and the peri-urban areas fall under the Minister’s control. There were at least a few areas, small towns, etc., where some freedom of movement was permitted to the Black citizens of this country, but now that is to go as well. Therefore my objections are much more basic than simply the inclusion of farming areas. I object basically to the idea of areas being delimitated into so-called White towns and Black areas, and therefore I will naturally vote against any extension of this principle.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister, especially in view of what he has just said, why it was necessary for him to take these tremendous powers set out in this clause. I point to the fact that in the principal Act the emphasis was rather on the Bantu and where he might or might not reside, whereas here it appears that the whole of the Republic of South Africa is to be divided into three categories. There will be the scheduled Native areas, the released areas, and there will be the rest of South Africa, which in terms of the powers the Minister takes in this clause can become one vast prescribed area. If that is wrong, I hope the Minister will correct me. [Interjection.] The hon. the Deputy Minister says he has dealt with this matter extensively. I am not concerned with what the Minister’s intentions are. I am reading what the clause says, and I am asking the Minister to deny that he has the power to prescribe the whole of South Africa other than what are already the scheduled areas or the released areas. [Interjections.] I merely say that in fact and in law, the position is that this clause makes all of South Africa which is not a scheduled or a released area a potential prescribed area or areas, and so far the Deputy Minister has not denied it.

I have. Where were you during my reply to the second reading?

As far as I know, I was here. In his own White Paper the Minister says: “this section creates prescribed areas …”. Every other area will disappear, and so I maintain that in terms of his own explanation, all the rest of South Africa which is not a scheduled or a released area can become a prescribed area in terms of this clause. And if the Minister still doubts what I say, the very next sentence of the White Paper says that “all urban areas will automatically be prescribed areas, save where the Minister otherwise directs”. I hope I have now cleared up this point to the satisfaction of the Deputy Minister. If I am correct, the people of South Africa should realize that this is not, as the title might suggest, a Bill which affects Bantu only, but it is a Bill which affects everyone in South Africa, including the White people. In the first two sentences of Clause 46 it says that “the Minister may after consultation with the urban local authority concerned, if any …”. There was a time when this sort of action required the agreement of the local authority, but unhappily that is far in the past now. [Interjections.] Let the Minister look at Section 9 of the principal Act. Now we have got to the stage where there may be consultation and the Minister may say: I have consulted with the urban local authorities, and this is what I will do! I say, with great respect to the Deputy Minister and any assurance he may have given to the hon. member for South Coast, that that does not get away from the simple fact that the Minister of Bantu Administration virtually becomes a dictator in the so-called White South Africa. In the Bill you will find, for example, in (3) on page 63 that the Minister may at any time after consultation with the urban local authority concerned, rescind, amend or vary any notice issued or deemed to have been issued in terms of sub-section (1) or declare that any urban areas specified in such notice shall no longer be deemed to be a prescribed area for the purposes of this Act. Sir, there is nothing in this Bill which denies the assertion I now make that the Minister of Bantu Administration becomes all-powerful, not merely in regard to regulating the movements and the rights of Bantu, but in regard to regulating the rights of the local authorities and the people who elect those authorities and who pay the rates to maintain them, and he has the right to proclaim virtually almost the whole of South Africa as one vast prescribed area under the control not only of the Government, but of the Minister of Bantu Administration.

I maintain that these powers are so wide and so unnecessary, that we must oppose the clause.

According to the argument of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) the whole of South Africa will be declared a prescribed area. He has apparently overlooked the fact that there are other laws which apply to our platteland areas and if he is right in his contention this will make all that legislation null and void. We have been dealing with Chapter IV of the Native Trust and Land Act the whole afternoon. Chapter IV controls all matters pertaining to the platteland and a number of amendments have been accepted to regulate matters in the platteland. What is the purpose of his argument? Does he suggest that the Minister is so ignorant of the position that he will declare the platteland a prescribed area thereby nullifying that mass of legislation which he himself has piloted through this House to regulate matters in those areas? There are two kinds of areas that have to be controlled, the platteland areas and the prescribed areas. Why will we give the right to a local authority such as that of Johannesburg to have the sole say over the platteland areas surrounding Johannesburg? That would be foolish, knowing the City Council of Johannesburg. No, these matters have to be dealt with together. We have to read the one section of the law in conjunction with the other. We cannot take one small portion only and say it will nullify all the other laws.

Clause 46, which establishes the prescribed areas, is the pedestal upon which the whole elaborate machinery of this Bill stands, of aid centres, the direction of labour, labour bureaux, the power to remove the protection of those categories of Bantu who formerly were protected in terms of Section 10 of the Urban Areas Act, the power to prevent the employment of Native labour, the power to break arbitrarily contracts of labour, and the various incursions into the powers of the local authorities. All of these things, some of which we have already dealt with in this Bill and others of which we shall be dealing with, and most of which we find objectionable —all these things stem from the ability of the Minister to prescribe an area in terms of this clause, and that is the principal objection we have to this clause, and that is why we oppose it.

There is one point I should like to raise and which the Minister may be able to clear up. There is in this Bill the power to establish labour bureaux. Labour bureaux have already been established in some areas, although I may say they have never functioned. Am I correct in thinking that when this Bill comes into force all labour bureaux will function in terms of this Act and the regulations to be made in terms of it, or is it envisaged that there will be two concurrent types of labour bureaux?

No. everything is in terms of the 1911 Act.

Very well, then there will be only one type of labour bureau, and that is the type we are discussing now.

The hon. members for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) and Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) whereas the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) only asked for an explanation of this clause. The Minister has given the assurance over and over again and he repeatedly said that hon. members were reading something into the clause which did not appear there. In terms of this clause the country will be divided into two large groups, not into three, as the hon. member for Hospital has said. They are the prescribed and the non-prescribed areas. Surely it would be impossible to declare every farm a prescribed area. It would be very stupid to do that because if that were done control would have to be exercised in terms of the next clause. Administratively, therefore it would not be possible to do so. The influx control machinery contained in Section 10 will also have to be applied and that is the reason why hon. members object to Section 9 and nothing else.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Minister has considered the question of amalgamating two or three adjacent urban areas into one prescribed area for the purposes of this Act? I know this suggestion has been made to him by various bodies, including Chambers of Industry and Commerce, in order to facilitate the use of African labour in the urban areas. Take an area like the Witwatersrand, with its continuous towns running in one long line, and take the case of a building firm having its headquarters in Johannesburg but wishing to use its labour on different jobs up and down the Rand. Under present regulations all sorts of difficulties are encountered by employers wishing to use their labour in different areas. They have to get special permits, etc. It would be so much easier if areas which obviously for economic reasons are one area could be combined for the purposes of the mobility of labour. At the same time it would very much facilitate the position of an African who has qualified to be in the urban area in terms of Section 10 (1), (2) and (3) and who may have lost his job in Johannesburg but knows of a job going in Germiston or the West Rand in a similar type of occupation. At the moment it is virtually impossible for an African to transfer his employment to an adjacent town, and it seems to me that in this clause the Minister could make some provision for the consolidation of adjacent towns. I wonder if he would consider an amendment, which I hope will translate that into law, on the following lines—

1. (4) The Minister may at any time, after consultation with the urban local authorities concerned, declare any two or more urban areas to be included as one prescribed area for the purposes of this Act.

I do not think that this in any way even infringes the principle which the hon. the Minister is trying to have enshrined in this Act; I happen to disagree with it but at least let us see if we cannot in some way increase the mobility of labour and remove some of the difficulties which employers find in terms of existing urban areas legislation. I move this amendment in the hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will consider it.

The clause as it stands, of course, gives this power to the Minister because there is provision that he can declare one area to be part of an existing prescribed area. On the Witwatersrand he could therefore quite clearly amalgamate the whole of the Witwatersrand as one area for this purpose. As the hon. the Deputy Minister knows, this suggestion has been made by many bodies. If all the bodies concerned on the Witwatersrand ask for this to be done, is the hon. the Deputy Minister then prepared to say that he will agree to it?

Let me tell the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) at once that for very obvious reasons I am not prepared to accept that amendment of hers. With this amendment of hers she wants, amongst others, to extend the privileges enjoyed by those who fall under Section 10 (1) (a). That is not acceptable to us. There are all sorts of other practical problems in connection with the responsibility for housing, transport, working in various undertakings, etc., etc. which come into the picture. Strictly speaking, I do not think we can discuss those at this stage.

I want to ask the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) please to take the trouble of once again reading what I said in my reply to the second reading debate on this point. Let me sum it up briefly for the hon. member: The hon. member is wrong in creating the impression that the whole area which he himself has described as White South Africa may be declared one large prescribed area.

Not “may”, but “can”.

There will be numbers or say hundreds of prescribed areas spread over the whole of South Africa with large areas of ordinary platteland farms in between, farms on which the Bantu labour will be controlled as already discussed under the previous clauses. It is incorrect, therefore, to suggest that the entire large area outside the Bantu homelands can be declared a prescribed area. I said in my reply that had we wanted to be as mad as to do that we could already have done so. The hon. member says we can do so, in other words, that we are going to do so.

No, I say you can do it.

The hon. member can also join the National Party but I am blessed if he will.

No, if he does I resign.

On a point of order, I am not going to do so but I can.

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member gave that assurance I was saying that he would not do so and in order to reassure hon. members around me, members of whom I am quite afraid, I want to say immediately that I do not want to suggest it at all. It is only an example to show that the hon. member must not in his imagination attach too much importance to the word “can”. Under existing provisions we can make the entire platteland area a proclaimed area for the purpose of Section 23 of the Urban Areas Act, for example, and we are not doing it. Surely we are not unnecessarily going to build large bureaucratic castles in the air for ourselves simply to cause a lot of trouble to ourselves and to irritate a number of people on the platteland. We can to-day already create that bogey which the hon. member has conjured up. I dealt with that in detail in my reply and I do not want to repeat what I said on that occasion. The hon. member misrepresents the position if he says the whole area is one area. The whole area outside the Bantu areas may consist of tens or perhaps hundreds of prescribed areas; we do not know how many local authorities there are. The hon. member does not see the position in the correct light.

The hon. member also said that we were ignoring the city councils; that we were simply saying “after consultation”. The hon. member should refer to existing legislation and he will see the various kinds of areas that can be proclaimed to-day, and in what respects it is obligatory under legislation introduced by the old United Party Government to obtain the approval of city councils and then the hon. member will realize that that is not so. This is nothing new at all. That areas can be declared prescribed areas after consultation with the city councils is something that goes far back. It is not essential to have their approval, it is not even necessary to consult them in terms of Section 23 and even under the old Section 9 of the Urban Areas Act. We are, however, inserting the words “after consultation” in this case.

I do not want to deal in this Committee with the implied invitation to me to join the National Party; I do not think you would allow me, Sir, to do so. But for all that the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, and for all the explanation he gave in his second reading speech and that he gave this afternoon, he has not altered a single comma in this particular clause of this particular Bill. I would like to say immediately to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), that when he suggests to the Committee that what I am trying to suggest is that a local authority like the Johannesburg City Council (which is almost like using a bad word here) should be given jurisdiction over rural areas, then, of course, he proves that he took absolutely no notice of what I said, anyway. I am not suggesting that the local authority should be given jurisdiction over rural areas. I am asking that the local authority should be allowed to retain some jurisdiction over its own area. Does the hon. member for Heilbron understand that? That is a very different proposition. Sir, I take the position that the hon. the Deputy Minister stated earlier this afternoon when he gave an explanation to the hon. member for South Coast. He said—and I think I took a free but accurate translation of what he said—“The ideal situation is or should be that a prescribed area shall be centred on or around an existing local authority.” I put that to him, and I hope he will correct me if I am wrong. He therefore has some regard to the fact (a) that there are local authorities in existence and (b) that in an ideal situation, as he puts it, his entire prescribed area in a certain part of the country shall be centred on that local authority. If that is the position, and having regard to the fact that I did not say that the Minister would turn the whole of the White portion of South Africa. …

You are talking tripe.

Well, Sir, if ever you have seen an expert on “talking tripe” it is the hon. member who has just made that interjection. However, I do not mind.

On a point of order is that sort of language proper in this House? The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. H. F. Bekker) said that the hon. member was talking “tripe”.

He was just stating a fact.

Order! The hon. member for Cradock ought not to use such words.

I did not know, Sir, that it was such a sin to say to a member that he is talking tripe. Anyway, I withdraw.

Had he said “tripe and onions”, that would have made sense!

The point I was going to make is this: The hon. the Deputy Minister is well aware that I did not say that the whole of the so-called White South Africa was going to be turned into a prescribed area by him or by any other Government. However, he does concede that my allegation, that it could be done by the Minister in terms of this clause, is correct. But do you know what he then said to me, Sir? He said to the Committee, addressing me, “But where have you seen a Government that would be as crazy as that?” Sir, my experience of this Government over the last 18 or 19 years indicates that there is nothing crazy enough, that they will not attempt to do; so, with great respect, I have little regard for the sort of argument that says, “Who would be so crazy as to do this?” I stand by what the law says; you can be as crazy as you are, or not at all.

You were in an asylum for 16 years … [Inaudible.]

Finally, the hon. the Deputy Minister denied my statement that in the old days, which I said were unfortunately so far in the past, there were instances …

On a point of order, the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) said something about the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) and an asylum.

I said that he was in an asylum for 16 years as a member of the City Council of Johannesburg.

You did not say that.

I did say it.

I could say to the hon. member for Mossel Bay, “For you take the high road and I’ll take the low road, and you’ll be in the asylum before me!”. What I was trying to say when I was interrupted is this: The hon. the Deputy Minister suggested that I had no basis for this statement that there was a time when the local authority, even in terms of legislation passed by the present Government, had some right to say “ Yea” or “Nay”. I want to give him a few examples. In Section 9 of the Principal Act he will find that it is provided in sub-section (7) (c): “Except with the approval of the Minister, given with the concurrence of the urban local authority concerned, etc., etc.” There you have one example, and this is legislation which was amended by the present Government in 1957. It requires the concurrence of the urban local authority concerned. And then over the page, in the same sub-section (7) you have (g) (i), which says—

First of all, in order to issue that notice, he has to advise the local authoirty of his intention to do so and he must invite that local authority to inform him within a specified period whether it has any objections to the issue of the notice —and this is the punch-line, as they say, Sir— “Or if such local authority objects to the issue thereof within the period so specified.” Sir, this is much more than the consultation provided for here which as the hon. Minister knows—better than I—has been and can continue to be more than the formality of a letter saying, in effect “I intend to do this; take it or leave it; I have done it before; you cannot even reply.” With all great and due respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister, with whom I have had some very serious differences recently, I want to say this to him: If he will stand up here and say, “This is the way we are going to pass it and I or my Minister will have all these powers in this Bill and the whole of the so-called White South Africa can, if the Government or I so desire, be turned into one vast prescribed area, this is the clause in the Bill that will enable me to do so when it becomes an Act” …

What do you mean by “so-called White South Africa?”

Sir, this is the term which the Government uses to distinguish the part of South Africa which is not a Bantustan and which is not to become a Bantustan. South Africa is a country which we of the United Party regard as a multi-racial one. However, I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will not deny now that these are the powers contained in the Bill, and that whether he intends to use them or not, the law will in fact permit the Minister to exercise them in the way which I have now twice described without any real controversy from the Government side about the statement made by me.

I would like to draw the attention of the Deputy Minister to sub-section (3) of this section, in terms of which we have the right to rescind, amend or vary any notice issued or deemed to have been issued under sub-section (1), or declare that any urban area specified in such notice shall no longer be deemed to be a prescribed area for the purposes of the Act. As I understand it, a labour bureau can only be established in a prescribed area. Assuming that the Minister in his wisdom decides to make use of this clause and that he declares a prescribed area no longer to be such a prescribed area, what would happen then to the Bantu employed there? I am just wondering whether there is any purpose in taking these powers. These are new powers so far as the Act itself is concerned.

Sir, there has been a lot of talk about removing the Bantu from the Western Cape, for example. There has been quite a considerable amount of discussion in Government circles on the necessity to try to bring about the actual physical segregation which they believe to be the ideal in this country in order to ensure the self-preservation of the so-called White South Africa. Would this be the ambling clause which would enable the Minister to take an urban area, a prescribed area, and declare it to be no longer a prescribed area, and thereby, in one fell swoop, remove all Bantu labour from that area? Because it would appear that that is the only way in which Bantu labour can exist here, that is to say, in a prescribed area where a labour bureau has been established. I would appreciate it if the Deputy Minister would explain the purpose of this Bill, what its enabling effect is, and whether it can have the effect that I have suggested?

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) takes the Cape Western area as an example, and then he wants to know if we are going to abolish a prescribed area in the Western Cape under sub-section (3) so that we can then say that every single Bantu in the Western Cape must be removed. I cannot understand how the hon. member’s mind can work along those lines only. Why does his mind not work in just the opposite direction? As far as the Western Cape is concerned he would then be much closer to the truth; he would then get much closer to one of the possibilities in implementing this sub-section. In other words, if the position should arise perhaps that somewhere in the Western Cape, in prescribed area X, Bantu are no longer employed, why then should that area still remain a prescribed area? Surely that prescribed area can then be abolished because there will no longer be Bantu in that area.

Is that the purpose?

I have said that that is one of the ways in which it will be possible to use this sub-section but I do not say that that is the only purpose. But the hon. member argued in just the opposite way.

I merely mentioned an example.

Yes, but the hon. member has such a one-track mind in mentioning examples. He says that we are going to deproclaim a place like Paarl or Stellenbosch or Cape Town immediately and then say that it is no longer a prescribed area and that consequently all the Bantu there must clear out. If such a thing were done—and it will not be done—then it would still not be necessary to say that all the Bantu must clear out because in that event the district labour bureau will still be able to regulate that Bantu labour.

It would then fall under different provisions.

Yes, it would then fall under other provisions. No, in mentioning this example, the hon. member is only trying to irritate people, and he is wrong in doing so. I want to take the hon. member’s mind back to the example set by his own leader, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), who spoke here this afternoon. The hon. member for South Coast agreed with me this afternoon that it was possible that there might be a certain place in the rural areas where there is a fairly heavy concentration of labour—at a mine, for example—and that it will be necessary therefore to declare it a prescribed area. After all, the demand for labour there may cease; the mine may become worked out. Must that area then continue to remain a prescribed area? Why should we not deproclaim it then and have done with the matter? That is also a possibility. It is a possibility, however, which the hon. member could have thought out for himself; he is a very clever member.

You are flattering him.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to allow the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) to get away with the example which he gave here.

[Inaudible.]

Before I issue any such certificate, I would want to have more experience of the bon. member. The hon. member quoted Section 9 (7) of the Urban Areas Act here and said: “Look, there it clearly says that the city council must concur.” Does the hon. member know which party proposed the insertion of that section in this House? It was this party. That particular section is the so-called Church clause. It was we who moved that the city council must concur. Why did the hon. member pick out that clause to suggest that we want to ride roughshod over the wishes of the city council? The hon. member need only look at the substantive sub-section of that particular section, namely sub-section (1), and then he will see that there is no such thing there, and that sub-section was not inserted by us; it was inserted by them years ago.

I want to put a different matter to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I think it is quite clear from the debate that what this clause contemplates is that there will be two categories of land in South Africa, one category in which prescribed areas can be declared and another category in which no prescribed area can be declared. The second one is any area inside a scheduled area or a released area Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what happens to the Transkei under this division, because when I look at the Transkei Act itself I find that it is described as an area which is a self-governing territory within South Africa, so presumably South Africa is now divided into three areas—the Transkei, the area in which prescribed areas may be proclaimed and the area consisting of released and scheduled areas in which no prescribed area can be proclaimed, I ask the Deputy Minister: Where does the Transkei fall? Can he prescribe an area in the Transkei?

The hon. member should know that a town like Umtata can be made a prescribed area because it falls under the Urban Areas Act.

Is the rest of the Transkei then to fall in the category of a scheduled area or a released area?

Yes. Read the 1936 Act.

Read the Transkei Act.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister is right about this then I am afraid the Transkei Act does not mean what it says. It certainly does not mean what it says because the Act declares it as a territory which has the distinction of being a self-governing one.

I just want to reply briefly to the previous speaker. If he reads the Transkei Act properly he will see that it says “The area of the Transkei will consist of …” and then all the Bantu areas within certain districts are defined. Those Bantu areas in turn are then defined in the same Act as released and scheduled areas. There is therefore no question about there not being clarity in regard to the Transkei. The hon. member knows that Umtata and the other towns which form White spots in the Transkei do not as yet fall under the Transkei Act. They can consequently still be declared prescribed areas in terms of this Act.

Amendment put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, amendment declared negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 47,

I wish to move the amendments standing in my name to this clause—

I want to say immediately that I consider this to be one of the worst clauses of this Bantu Laws Amendment Bill. It transfers the right to permit an African to remain in an urban area from the local authority to the manager of a local labour bureau. It substitutes a new sub-section (2) in place of the existing subsection (2) which at least laid down specifically that where an African was permitted to remain in an area for the purpose of seeking work the period of validity of the permit should not be less than seven days. The moment that African found work his permit remained valid throughout the time that he remained with that employer. The new subsection (2) does away with that right. The jurisdiction of the ordinary magistrate’s court is now excluded; that jurisdiction is taken over by the Bantu Affairs Commissioner. It adds a new presumption and onus of guilt. It is now left to the African to prove that he is allowed to stay in an area for longer than 72 hours and it deletes sub-section (6) under which local authorities could request that influx control regulations should not apply in that area. But far worse than all of this, of course, is sub-paragraph (c). That, as far as I am concerned, is one of the worst features of the whole of this bad Bill. My amendments seek to remove some of the worst features of sub-paragraph (c). This new clause introduced a new important disability which will now be felt by a class of African formerly exempted from that disability. I refer to those Africans who qualified under Section 10 (1) (a), 9 (b) and (c). Under that section this small exempted class had the right which was by no means an unrestricted right, to have their wives and dependants to live with them. That is the lawfully wedded wife of a man could live with him if he were exempted. His minor children could also join him in the urban area. Provided, of course, that there was suitable accommodation.

In 1952 an additional restriction was added to those already in existence by the introduction of a strange little phrase which stated that the woman also had to “ordinarily reside” with her husband. I might say that there has been considerable confusion as a result of the introduction of that phrase. All local authorities have difficulty in interpreting this phrase. Most of them have interpreted it in a different fashion. Whereas some local authorities have taken it to mean that a man could get married and bring his wife back with him to the urban area “ordinarily to reside” with him, others have taken it to mean that a man could not introduce his newly married wife into the urban area so that she could take up ordinary residence with him If you will remember, Sir, it was on this phrase that the Maphele case in Paarl was decided last year. As you will remember, Sir, Mrs. Maphele lived in the Paarl location. Her husband was a qualified man. He, however, was ordered to live in bachelor quarters in the Paarl location. As a result Mrs. Maphele, who was married to him by Christian rites, was unable to take up ordinary residence with him but resided with relatives in the Paarl location elsewhere. She was endorsed out on the ground that she was not ordinarily resident with her husband, who was a qualified man. In finding against her in terms of the existing law the Judge stated that he could not imagine that that was what the Legislature had intended when this phrase was introduced into the law in 1952. Well, Sir, the learned gentleman should have sat in this House and listened to the speeches delivered on this Bill and he would have seen that that was unfortunately only too clearly what the Legislature intended. And that is that every possible difficulty should be placed in the way of a man having his lawfully wedded wife live with him.

To existing legislation have now been added two further difficulties by paragraph (c). The first difficulty is that not only must the wife and the minor dependants be ordinarily residing with the husband, in order to qualify, in that prescribed area, but she must produce proof that she had entered lawfully originally.

Why not?

Well, I would say it was a normal right of a man who had married a woman by Christian rites in a Christian country to have her with him, not as a concession by a benevolent Government but as an ordinary right of a human being. The hon. member queries that. Will the hon. member solve the legal difficulty which is now going to arise as a result of these words “ordinarily resident in that prescribed area” and “lawfully entered originally”?

Take the case of a man who qualified under the existing legislation to remain in the urban area. He is part of the exempted Section 10 (1) (a), (b) and (c) group. He was either born in the area or lived there continuously for 15 years or he had been with the same employer for ten years. He now marries a woman, say, from Umtata or from any other area in a reserve or from another town.

He must not marry.

I am sure that is exactly what it means: he must not marry. Because if he does he cannot bring his wife to live with him because she had not ordinarily resided with him and she could not legally enter that town unless she was ordinarily resident with her husband before, in fact, she married him. What confusion! If this is not confusion confounded a thousand times I do not know what it is. Every possible difficulty is now being placed in the way of a man having his lawfully wedded wife to live with him.

Let us take the case of a man who qualifies after he has married. In other words, a man marries a woman in a reserve. He then comes to live in a town because there is no work for him in the reserve. He takes up employment in an area and after ten years with the same employer he qualifies or he stays in the area for 15 continuous years. He has been home to visit his family but he returned within the prescribed period, which is less than a year, and he was allowed to return to the same employer. He now wants to bring his wife and his family with him. Accommodation is available and he is in the same job. To all intents and purposes he is a permanently urbanized man. He wants the right to bring his family to live with him. Under this legislation he cannot do so. Let us take the case of a woman who has qualified. I have one such case. This woman has been in Cape Town since 1945. The authorities here agree that she is qualified because she has been here much longer than the necessary 15 years. She is therefore entitled to be in the urban area of Cape Town. In October 1963 she married by Christian rites a man living and employed in Cape Town but who himself had only come here in 1949. In other words he has not yet qualified for permanent residence although he is in fact in employment in Cape Town. [Time limit.]

This clause deals with that category of Bantu the attitude to whom has caused all the debate we have had on this Bill, namely, the permanently settled urban Bantu. Here is the kernel of the difference between this side of the House and that side. When one looks at the amendments which are made here and the attitude which lies behind them and you try to give them as normal a meaning as the words in the clause entitle you to give them you are met by the sort of interjection the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has just made. The hon. member for Kempton Park is not just another back-bencher in the Nationalist Party, Sir. He is a gentleman with considerable influence. He is a gentleman of considerable status in that party. He is a gentleman with legal training. When the suggestion was made that if these people are here they are entitled to have their wives with them the hon. gentleman interjected and said they were only entitled to have their wives with them in their own territory. That is the attitude of mind to an existing state of affairs. We are dealing in this clause with a class of persons who were recognized by Statute as being a permanent part of our urban community, persons who should be protected above all others; persons who should be entitled to remain in the urban areas in terms of this clause. We are now amending the existing law and those amendments relate to their status in the urban areas. Perhaps the hon. member for Kempton Park let the cat out of the bag when he said they could only have their wives with them if they lived in their own territory.

The first category mentioned in this clause consists of persons who have been born here and lived here continuously since birth. Where do they belong? Where is their territory? How can the hon. member say a thing like that? He, a member of the legal profession! How can he talk about people who have lived continuously in an urban area, people who were born there, as though they had no rights in the urban area? What is provided in this clause as far as the wife is concerned? It says that she has to reside with him in such an area. I want the hon. the Deputy Minister please once and for all to eludicate exactly what the position of these women is. Because it would appear that they are entitled to come into the urban areas for 72 hours at a time in any event. That would appear to be the position, but I may be wrong. This is very important in discussing the rest of the Bill. Are these people in fact entitled to come in for 72 hours at a time for any other purpose than to seek work? That is something we would very much like to know.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that the right of people to come in to seek work no longer exists, as I understood him. Perhaps the Deputy Minister will make that clear once and for all. Those persons who came here to seek work were normally given a permit to seek work. The permit was usually given to them for a period of seven days, as has been said here. Now that class has completely disappeared. The hon. Deputy Minister is a member of this Government. The hon. the Minister of Justice has told us that he wants to get rid of communists and agitators. I want to remind the hon. Minister that he is not going to do it. The persons who are going to prevent communists and agitators from getting a foothold in this country are the Bantu themselves. No one else in the world is going to do that job for us. The people who are going to do that job are the very people with whom we are dealing here, namely, the urban Bantu who is permanently settled here, the urban Bantu who has a stake here, the urban Bantu who knows no other place and who wants to improve his standard of living here and who wants to hold on to that which he has here, to the exclusion of others who want to take that away from him. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is deliberately putting a wedge between the hon. the Minister of Justice and his task and the Bantu themselves who want to stave off Communism, who want to keep agitators away and who want to maintain law and order.

Let us consider the people who are married and who have their wives and children with them. They live in an urban area. They have their homes in the urban area. They have something to lose in that urban area. They have nothing to lose in some territory that they do not even know. Had they had something to lose in some other territory, as the hon. member for Kempton Park suggested— and that was the only right they had—then I am quite satisfied that they will be happy to join in all sorts of antics and subversive activities.

Do not let us talk in terms of parables any more; let us be realistic. The permanently urban Bantu who are settled here are here to stay. Surely, Sir, even the hon. the Deputy Minister has given some sort of cognizance to this fact. Because it is a fact, not a theory. If they are here to stay then surely we have to place them in a position in which they can stay. We must place them in a position where, as they have to remain, they are going to be our friends and be on our side. The hon. the Deputy Minister goes on, however, aided and abetted by the hon. member for Kempton Park with the wonderful theories of his, and he provides that those people shall not have those benefits which are normal adjuncts to civilized life in the urban areas; they can only have them in some other area. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us where those other areas are. Where is the man who was born in Durban and lived there all his life to go? I mention Durban particularly because we shall come to a clause at a later stage where the entrenched right of certain Bantu women to join their husbands is taken away from them. The people of Greytown and Durban are going to be more affected than anybody else.

I am very pleased the hon. the Minister of Information is here. This clause deals with the most germane difference between us. The hon. the Minister of Information talks in the “African Digest” about this Bill and he calls it a consolidatory Bill for the urban Bantu! There are 7,000,000 of them, Sir. What are the urban Bantu? Perhaps the hon. member for Kempton Park can enlighten us where these urban Bantu are, these urban Bantu that are no longer recognized as being urban Bantu. Where are they? Who is right? Is the hon. the Deputy Minister right or is the hon. Minister of Information right or is the hon. member for Kempton Park right? What is an urban Bantu? Perhaps the hon. Minister of Information will explain that to us. He says in this booklet that the Bill envisages amongst other things—

The hon. member who has just sat down spoke with the authentic voice of the party over there which denies that there is such a thing as White South Africa and which regards the position of the White man in our areas of South Africa as that of a “bywoner”. I talk with the authentic voice of those people who regard South Africa as a country where the Whites are not here as “bywoners” and who say that this country, outside of the Bantu areas, belongs to us and that we are going to rule this country for our own salvation and survival. That is the background to the difference between the two parties in the first place.

Let us now look at the political lie which is being told here. That political lie consists of the suggestion …

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say that we are telling a political lie?

Order ! The hon. member for Kempton Park is not referring to any specific person.

I have been forbidden before to use the term.

The hon. member did not use the term in respect of a specific member.

He is deliberately using the word “political” before the word “lie” and I contend that that does not make it a parliamentary term.

Order!

I will withdraw it if it offends hon. members. It is equally effective to say that the statement which is being made here is a complete political misrepresentation, an untruth which is broadcast to the outside world by those journalists who hear this parliamentary untruth. The suggestion which is being made here is that this Bill radically interferes with the family life of Bantu living in the urban areas. Sir, what is really new in this Bill? As far as the position of the Bantu woman is concerned there is only one thing in this Bill that is new. The existing law is that any Bantu woman who wishes to live in the city normally has to live with the man who she claims is her husband. The only addition which is being made in this Bill is that she must be able to prove that she is living with her reputed husband after having entered the prescribed area legally. All we now require her to do after entering the area legally is to live with him. Is it unreasonable, from the point of view of the lawyer, to demand that any rights she acquires must have a lawful origin? That is all this Bill provides for. Moreover, the City Council of Johannesburg was one of the bodies which requested that lawful entry must be a pre-requisite for founding any subsequent residential right in the urban area. In what way are rights being interfered with? The hon. member talks as though this legislation is going to make marriage between the Bantu male and the Bantu female altogether impossible. The first category of Bantu who may stay in the White urban area according to this measure are those who have resided there continually since birth. The hon. member over there alleges that thousands of Bantu, millions of Bantu, are involved; he goes so far as to say that there are 7,000,000 Bantu who were born in the urban areas and who have lived there all their lives. Surely there will be ample scope for marriage unions between the vast numbers who were born here and who have resided here for a long time. That is a fact which should be borne in mind by hon. members opposite who allege that it is fantastic for us to say that the family home of this Bantu is his homeland. The case about which they are attacking us is the case of the Bantu who marries a woman from one of the Bantu homelands. Is it not strange, Sir, that for the purposes of domicilium they come along with the argument that a gross injustice is done to the Bantu when we banish him to his homeland, and yet they recognize the likelihood that he is going to look for a wife in his homeland. What a ridiculous argument! They know that on the one hand the Bantu has ties with his homeland and it is no substantial or social injustice to give legal recognition to that fact; on the other hand they know as a practical fact that there is a large urban Bantu population which is free to marry within the rights given to them by this legislation, and to propagate themselves, entirely within the terms of this legislation. No, the position is being represented here as though existing rights are being interfered with in a terrible and far-reaching manner, whereas the only addition to the Urban Areas Act which is contained in this amendment in Clause 47 11) (c) is the requirement that the Bantu woman must be able to prove lawful entry into the urban area. What is wrong with that? If a marriage takes place outside of the urban areas, then that Bantu woman can come to the city as a work-seeker. We do not want the Bantu woman here simply as an adjunct to the procreative capacity of the Bantu population, because hon. members on the other side are the first people to reproach this party about the growth of the urban Bantu population. They point out that within the space of nine years the urban Bantu population has grown by one or two million. The reason for that is that people increase in numbers through certain processes of nature.

We are not complaining; we simply say that that is a fact.

It is a fact, however, which is flung in our faces as a reproach. What I am saying is that if the Bantu male has such great love for the Bantu female in the reserves, then he must also accept the attitude of the White man that the Bantu who is given the right to reside in the cities, is given that residential right by virtue of the fact that the Bantu’s labour is needed in the urban area. The wife can then offer her services and if her services are needed in the labour market she will be able to enter and they will be able to live together in the urban area as husband and wife. If her services are not needed, then the husband is faced with the choice of either living the traditional life of tens of thousands of Bantu who are migratory labourers, who go and live away from their wives and children for long periods and who periodically go back to the reserves (because this Bill provides that the Bantu may go back to Umtata and then come back again and work for the same master in the White area) …

Umtata is a White area.

I realize that the hon. member is sensitive as far as Umtata is concerned. Let us say the Transkei then; he can go back to the Transkei and he may come back within a year to his former employer. He can either become a bona fide migratory labourer and keep his wife in the Bantu area, as thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of Bantu do at the present time, or he can go and make his own living there, because there are ever-increasing opportunities of employment there to-day. And if that does not suit him, this White community is not prepared, for the sake of his convenience, to establish yet another Bantu family in our urban areas so that hon. members opposite can then come along with the argument that there are so many more Bantu permanently settled in the urban areas, that there are so many more Bantu who were born in the urban areas, that we have so much less right to-day to talk about White South African and that they have so much more right to talk about a coloured nation with a common patriotism, a subject on which the hon. member for South Coast always remains conspicuously silent.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Would the hon. member object then to an unmarried White man who is a trader in the Transkei marrying a girl from outside of the Transkei and then taking her to the Transkei to live with her as husband and wife?

I would not object, but if the Bantu Authorities find that the traders in the Transkei increase in numbers as a result of the large number of families there, then that would be a very reasonable objection on the part of the Transkeian authority. That is my attitude in connection with this matter. The last point I want to make in connection with the attack on this clause is in regard to the other addition which was dealt with by the hon. member for Houghton, that is to say, under 1 bis. That is covered, of course, by the earlier parts of this Bill.

I said nothing about it.

Then I misunderstood the hon. member. [Time limit.]

As the hon. member for Kempton Park was addressing the committee, I was trying to apply his argument to a specific case and to a particular area, say, like the city of Johannesburg which he mentioned. He says in effect that we on this side of the House must recognize that in the White South Africa the White man will regulate his affairs in such a way as to suit himself. This is what he asks us to accept. Furthermore, he says that it suits us, or will suit us from now on to ensure that, by making it more and more difficult for “further Bantu” (as they are called in another clause) to enter such an area as Johannesburg; to ensure that the number will continue to diminish over the years. I think that is his proposition. I want to put it to the committee that there are very interesting considerations in that philosophy. When the Johannesburg City Council—any local authority for that matter—Johannesburg embarked on a very vast building project, particularly in the south-weastern areas, which is now known as Soweto, and which, for example, has resulted in this case in something like 47,000 houses—not single quarters—being built, it clearly was the object of the Government— insisting that these things be done, and assisting these things financially—to provide for some form of family life. That is beyond denial by anybody surely, because you do not build a two-roomed house, etc., with a little garden in front of it and all the amenities of a house and a household …

Order! The hon. member must not wander too far away from the clause.

What I am trying to get at is that those homes were and still are being provided for the enjoyment of or by a family. The hon. member for Kempton Park now argues that henceforth the question of lawful entry will come into the picture very strongly in regard not only to the exclusion of certain Bantu from a municipal area but in regard to the diminution of the numbers of those living there.

It is a self-propagating community.

Yes, but it is a community which can only propagate as to those who are married, or living together by Bantu rites —or living together, anyway!

Those who were born there.

Then those who are propagated, as it were, will have been born, and those who are born in Johannesburg will live there. This is not the argument I am trying to refute. I am trying to find out what the hon. member for Kempton Park will do in the case—for example—of a person …

I am trying to stand by the clause.

I am trying to apply the clause to the practical position that will arise. The hon. member may be very happy with the clause, but I am not. I want to ask him: “How would he deal for example with that part of (c) which says “of any Bantu mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection and after lawful entry into such prescribed area, ordinarily resides with that Bantu in such area …”. After lawful entry, and, the person must ordinarily reside with that Bantu. It is as ridiculous as this, Sir: One construction of this particular clause is that if the “enkellopende” Bantu, (and the Government has had a great deal to say about the evil of the “enkellopende” Bantu in the urban areas) the self-respecting Bantu bachelor “A” who is qualified to be in that area wants to marry a Bantu female “B” who has lawfully entered the area, but up to that point has not resided with the Bantu of the first part (the male), then, as I see the position, she could not in any case normally marry this man because she has not met the two conditions (a) that she must have lawfully entered the area and (b) that she must ordinarily reside with this man. I put it to the hon. member for Kempton Park that marriage between A and B is not possible in terms of this clause. Is that correct or not? This is not a legal quibble. Like the hon. member for Kempton Park, I am reading this clause. There are two conditions to be fulfilled, so that it is not merely a question of excluding the female from the scheduled area—for example, from the Transkei—who for a reason that is good in her eyes and that of the man who wants to marry her and who is qualified to be in that prescribed area, wants to come to the city in order to set up in family life with him. It can and probably will affect a Bantu female who otherwise is lawfully in the area concerned, but not having resided with this particular Bantu male, has no business to be with him, because she has not met both conditions at the same time. If this is not a case of reductio ad absurdum, I do not know what this clause is aiming at.

Only one condition.

Mr. Chairman, I know this is going to be an exercise in circumlocution, but I will give the hon. member for Heilbron the remainder of my time, which I estimate at four minutes, to explain what he has just said by way of an interjection, as to how this will work.

Let the hon. member who has just sat down please read carefully what is stated here in Clause 47 (c). Let me read it out in English—

This refers to a Bantu woman. Two different conditions are not being imposed here. It does not say “and”; it says “after lawful entry, ordinarily resides”. Assuming she was born there, then she is already there lawfully, and if she is “ordinarily resident” there then she must live with him; she must not live elsewhere, she must live with him. There is one condition only and that is that after having entered the urban area she must ordinarily reside with him. that is all. But the hon. meiner talks as though there are two separate conditions, firstly that she must have resided with him already and secondly that she entered the area lawfully. But that is not the case. And while I am dealing with this I want to refer that hon. member to the position in Israel. You know, Sir, in Israel there are Arabs, and any Arab living in Israel must be able to prove that he was born there, and if he has a wife she must also prove that she was born there. That is the only way in which she can enter Israel. The Arab can go and take a wife unto himself in some Arabian country, but he is not allowed under any circumstances to bring her into Israel. He cannot even prove that she entered Israel lawfully if she was not born there. I want to say for the hon. member’s information that as far as the Arabs are concerned Israel goes very much further than we want to go here. It is just as well that the hon. members opposite always place themselves on a high moral pedestal, particularly those who belong to that particular race, and they are always prepared to describe those of us who wish to keep South Africa White as immoral. It is high time we rubbed it in that the best example of this type of thing is to be found in Israel and not in South Africa. In South Africa we allow … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban (North) must not make constant interjections please.

In South Africa we still allow a Bantu woman to come and live with her husband in the White area provided she enters the area lawfully. In Israel an Arab woman cannot do so; she can only enter if she was born there.

That is not true.

I do not know whether the hon. member is alleging that I am not speaking the truth, but that is the position.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

The hon. member can ask his question later one. I want to point out that there are many Bantu women who are lawfully living in the White area to-day because they were born here.

May I ask a question?

Sir, I fired a shot at random and judging by the hon. member’s reaction it is perfectly clear that I hit the target. Let me go further. I want to repeat that under (a) many Bantu women have entered our urban areas lawfully. If a Bantu woman marries a Bantu who is also lawfully in the urban area, then they are allowed to reside there, and that is in fact why we built the houses to which the hon. member referred. These houses were also built for another reason, and that is to provide housing for the stable labour force. We know that under the circumstances created by the United Party, large squatters’ towns came into being around our cities. We had to clear up those squatters’ towns, and that is why these large schemes were undertaken. That was the reason for it. But the hon. member now wants all those Bantu who marry women living outside of the urban areas to be able to bring those women into the urban area and to form further squatters’ colonies there. I think the position is clear now.

I particularly want to reply to the hon. member for Heilbron, but I have got a lot of other things to say. I want to put him right on one inaccurate statement he made. Sir, there is no law whatsoever in Israel to prevent an Arab marrying an Arab woman born anywhere in Israel and not being allowed to bring her into “a prescribed area”.

A woman from outside?

I am talking about inside the country, I am not talking about outside Israel. Any citizen anywhere in Israel may marry an Arab woman in Israel and bring her to the place where he lives. We are talking about South Africans, people born in South Africa, who are now apparently allowed to live with and marry women only if such women are born or qualify in the same area that they themselves are qualified to live in. The hon. member for Kempton Park made that absolutely clear. In fact, if one really wants to know what is behind this Bill, one should not read the speeches of the hon. Deputy Minister or the speeches of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), but one should read the speeches of the hon. member for Kempton Park. He has made it absolutely clear that those Africans who are born in an urban area may marry women born in such urban area and live with them there. The hon. member does not want any increment. He talks about a self-propagating population. In other words, the existing African population may continue to live and marry with each other providing of course they do not lose their jobs in which case they can all be shunted out anyway. But as long as their labour is required they may continue to live, marry and propagate, “self-propagate”. I want to know at which stage is the hon. member for Kempton Park going to decide that even the existing urban population is getting too big for his liking, because he is worried about any increase from outside. He does not worry so much at the moment about the increase of the existing population. This is the whole crux of the Bill, to try and contain the urban population to its existing figures plus an increase, the natural increase, until the hon. member for Kempton Park decides that even that is getting too much, and then they will all be pushed out. That is one reason for instance why all these fine houses that are being built by the Government for the urban African population are on a maximum of a 30-year-lease, so that when the existing population has served its purpose, we can have a complete labour turnover on a migratory basis, starting again at a lower level, the idea being to limit the urban population. Sir, the few speeches we have had this afternoon from the hon. member for Kempton Park and the hon. member for Heilbron have made that absolutely clear.

I want to get back to one question I was going to ask the hon. Deputy Minister when my time was up. [Interjections.] I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether you would be good enough to keep the hon. member here quiet for one minute.

Order! The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling)!

He does not have the courage to stand up and make his own speech, or even to make a comment which is audible to you.

The hon. member is a coward.

I won’t allow a communist to say that to me.

Order! The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) may not call another hon. member a coward.

I withdraw that.

Then I withdraw the word “communist”.

Well, Sir, he may not be a coward, but he is a bully, I will say that. Sir, I was talking about the case of a woman who qualified to live in an area, being endorsed out because she married a man who was not qualified. She is in the process of being endorsed out. She qualified herself, she married a man who is employed in Cape Town but who has not yet qualified under the 10-year rule; and so she by virtue of marrying an unqualified man is now being endorsed out. This case has gone on appeal to the Bantu Commissioner. In the meantime, apparently, the woman has got to the stage that she knows that no work will be provided for her …

She qualified?

She qualified on her own to be here, but she married a man—this is a grievous sin—who is not qualified. So she is in the process of being endorsed out.

Why does she not live with her husband?

Her husband is working in Cape Town and he is at the moment not qualified, but he is allowed to stay here because he is in employment. Has that now penetrated the brain of the hon. member for Heilbron? So we have reached the stage that families in order to maintain their living, in order to stay in jobs, because they do not want to be kicked back to the reserves, where in spite of the hon. member for Kempton Park’s remarks there are not vast and fertile fields to cultivate and remunerative jobs to take, families are even considering, because of this, in order to maintain their families, getting a divorce. That is what this particular woman is considering in order to be able to stay in the urban area, and then presumably to live in sin with her previous husband. The intricacies of this law are such that the Maphele case is going to look like a Christmas picnic in comparison to the sort of cases that this country is going to have to deal with, cases that are going to receive publicity and are going to do untold harm to South Africa.

Now I ask the hon. the Minister to answer three pertinent questions: Can a man who qualifies under Section 10 ever marry a woman from outside the area and bring her to live lawfully in this area, i.e., from another prescribed area or from the reserves? Can a man who qualifies and who is already married to a woman in the reserves—the man having qualified to be here by virtue of being here for ten years in the same employ or 15 years continuously—bring his wife and family in to live with him? And what of the case of the woman who qualifies under her own right, who marries a man at present employed in Cape Town who does not qualify and is now being, by virtue of that, endorsed out?

Is the man qualified?

He is in employment here and he is allowed to stay. He is not qualified, but he is legally in the area and is working here. Apparently they can live together in sin, but unfortunately the Bantu Affairs Commissioner of the area does not consider that they can live together as a married couple because he has endorsed her out of the area and the case has now gone to appeal. So it is not as simple as the hon. member thinks.

Pursuant to Standing Order No. 25, I move—

I do so in order to discuss the outbreak of smallpox in Port Elizabeth.

Sir, I am indeed grateful to you for allowing me to raise a matter of great public importance to the citizens of the city that I and others on this side of the House have the honour to represent. A few weeks ago a suspected case of smallpox was reported in the municipal area of Walmer near Port Elizabeth. A total number of 16 cases have now been brought to the notice of the authorities. A fatal case has also occurred in the last few days. Our Republic has always been on its guard against this dreadful disease, a disease which could cause total havoc among the human resources of our country. Our children are specially protected by regular vaccinations. I think it is also accepted that in modern times our health authorities take all the necessary precautions to keep our people out of the reach of this terrible germ. Our health, social and housing conditions are continually being improved to prevent any outbreak of this disease, and if an outbreak should occur no stones are left unturned to immunize in the shortest possible period the largest possible number of our people. Sir, this was done in Port Elizabeth and is still being done. The suspected cases were immediately isolated and quarantined. A city-wide campaign, which is now reaching larger proportions, was immediately started when this disease became known. We also know that temporary clinics were opened at all strategic places in Port Elizabeth. The Red Cross, the Noodhulpliga and every available interested private organization, retired nurses and retired doctors and practising medical men have helped generously to help with the immunization campagin. The whole country, and especially the Eastern Cape, is indebted to the men and women who in their private or official capacities came forward immediately to stop an epidemic starting. It is estimated to-day that close on 300,000 people will have been vaccinated by this afternoon. I must also say that the much maligned and often discredited public Press has played a gallant part to keep the effects of such a scourge before the public eye, and they have encouraged the people of Port Elizabeth to come forward and have themselves vaccinated. But when a boat capsizes in rough seas, one is always most grateful to those who rescue the survivors, but at the same time it is necessary to single out the man who left the oars at home, or the one who forgot to bring a sufficient supply of fuel for emergencies. Sir, one is entitled to ask how this outbreak started.

It is rumoured that a Native woman and her children came from Nyasaland and apparently without adhering to the normal precautions to ascertain whether she and her children were vaccinated or immunized or not The hon. the Minister must tell us whether that is so or not. If that is the case, I think there has been an unforgivable neglect of duty on the part of somebody somewhere. I am reliably informed, too, that this woman left this country a few years ago to live in Nyasaland, and one is entitled to ask whether she and her family were scrutinized for vaccination purposes before they left the country. Now, after two or three years, she was allowed to come back again and it appears that again no precautions were taken. One is absolutely astounded at this shocking display of inefficiency and/or neglect of duty. Who was responsible for letting this woman through again without a thorough checking of her papers and documents?

This family must have been in contact with numerous others on her journey through South Africa. It is reported that she changed trains at Rosmead before departing for Port Elizabeth, and only there was the disease detected after a while. I have also been told that contacts that this woman had on the train coming down from Nyasaland through Mafeking, etc., have been found as far south as Worcester. Fortunately the authorities have been alerted there. I think one must immediately accept, too, that if the authorities at Worcester could have been alerted, this woman could have been in contact with people who are at the moment spread wide over the whole province, and perhaps right through the Republic of South Africa. I was also told this morning that a case has now been discovered in the Tarkastad district.

I mention these things to show how fortunate we have been up to now in that no large-scale epidemic has broken out. The stupid action or failure to act of somebody somewhere along the line has caused a great deal of anxiety in the Eastern Cape. It should be pointed out and emphasized that this sort of thing could do an immeasurable amount of harm to this country, not to talk of the unexpected and unnecessary amount of time, effort and money that now have to be spent in order to prevent a calamity. I think we must also accept that it is well-nigh impossibile to immunize the whole population effectively if a disease like this should spread, and therefore I believe that the hon. the Minister has a clear duty to-day. His first duty is to tell us how it was possible that this could have happened, that this woman could have crossed our borders without being thoroughly checked for vaccination purposes. Where was this neglect of duty? Secondly, one is entitled to ask the Minister to give the House assurances that all possible steps are being taken to locate all possible contacts that this family had on their train journey. Contacts have been found in Worcester, and there could be contacts all over South Africa. Thirdly, one is entitled to ask what steps are contemplated to reassure the public that no such event will recur. Fourthly, one is entitled to ask whether any plans have been made to improve the facilities for the thorough checking of people who cross our borders. Finally, I believe that the hon. the Minister, by giving us a strong reply to-day and by giving us full details of his plans to prevent such an occurrence again, will prevent something similar happening in future.

Mr. Speaker, the outbreak of smallpox in Port Elizabeth is unfortunately one of the occurrences we experience in our country from time to time, and which other countries of the world also experience from time to time. Often it is due to an unfortunate concatenation of circumstances. Perhaps I should first give the facts.

The facts were that a Bantu woman and her six children entered the country from Nyasaland. The woman had been vaccinated, but not the children. Her permanent abode is in Nyasaland and she came to Port Elizabeth on a visit, having lived there previously. On 7 February she entered the Walmer location, but only on 9 February did two of her children break out in a rash. Now it is a fact that by the time one gets the rash one has already had that disease in an infectious form. In other words, on 6 February those children must already have had smallpox. They arrived in Port Elizabeth on 7 February. Consequently they could possibly have infected any person with whom they came into contact on their journey to Port Elizabeth. As hon. members know, the most serious form of infection lies in the vapour of one’s breath; in that form the germs are most easily transferred from one person to another. Immediately it was discovered that this woman’s children had smallpox they were accommodated in an isolation hospital which was then established in Walmer. Not only was the family placed in the isolation hospital, but all the contacts as well. Then steps were taken to vaccinate every single person in the Walmer location by means of teams which worked at tremendous speed and under great pressure, practically continuously. As the hon. member has said, 16 persons thereafter contracted smallpox in the Walmer location. One of them died Four of them were adults and the rest were all children. In other words, that shows that when they were vaccinated they had already been infected with smallpox, because a person who has already contracted the disease cannot be saved by means of vaccination. The whole area was then combed for persons who could possibly have come into contact with a carrier. The only other places, as far as we know, where there are persons who have probably contracted smallpox, are Uitenhage and Humansdorp. There was one case at Uitenhage which was immediately isolated. This case appeared in the Uitenhage location. Then there was a Coloured on a farm near Humansdorp who was suspected of having smallpox. He was removed to the isolation hospital in Walmer. At the same time the Railways were immediately notified. The Railways notified all its personnel; the officials along the railway line on the route concerned were all told to take immediate steps to have their employees vaccinated. Those are the steps which were taken to prevent the spreading of smallpox. In actual fact, there is to-day no effective cure for smallpox. When one has contracted smallpox the disease must just run its course. However, a British firm recently developed a certain preparation which has been applied with a fair measure of success in India. I say “a fair measure of success” because there are still many shortcomings even in so far as this medicine is concerned. The Department went out of its way to get this preparation from overseas and it was applied in the cases of smallpox which had been discovered. It seems as if it is yielding good results, but it is too early to judge at this stage to what extent it has been successful.

I can well understand the hon. member making this allegation—because it is obviously an allegation—that these persons should never have been allowed to enter South Africa when they were not vaccinated, but unfortunately the position is not quite so simple. According to the international sanitation rules, the position is that when a person has the right to enter a country by way of permit, visa or passport, one cannot prohibit such a person from entering because he has not been vaccinated. The position is complicated further by the fact that such a person can refuse to be vaccinated, and the only thing a state can do then is to isolate this person for the necessary incubation period to make sure that he does not have the specific disease which are being guarded against. If we were to apply this method in South Africa, it would mean that we would not only have to have a place of isolation in every area of South Africa, but virtual isolation camps, because large numbers of Bantu cross our borders continually at most of these places. At the present moment we do not have such camps, also for another reason: Supposing, for example, that the Bantu get to know that all Bantu who are not vaccinated will be refused permission to enter, or that they will be forced to have themselves vaccinated, or that we can keep them in camps for an average period of 12 days, because 14 days is the incubation period, to give the disease a chance to reveal itself, what will happen? The Bantu can simply get off the train at Mafeking, cross the border on foot, and board the train again a little further on. We are in this difficult position that until such time as the borders of South Africa are effectively fenced off, so that the Bantu cannot cross the borders, there is really no measure that can be applied against it. We know that the Bantu who are being stopped to-day literally stream over our borders. We know that they deliberately do not cross the borders at the border posts where there is any hindrance. It will therefore serve no purpose to impose obstacles there because they will simply avoid these control posts. As the result of the international rules, and as the result of this factual position, the Department has therefore introduced the rule that, until such time as the borders can be closed effectively at certain places, people are told immediately to have themselves vaccinated when they arrive at their destination, and the officials are told immediately to notify the Department of the presence of people who are not vaccinated. That is practically the only measure we have at our disposal at present.

But now perhaps a second objection may be raised, namely: Why does the Department not provide vaccination teams at all these places in order to vaccinate the people who cross the borders? The problem firstly is that in many of these places they enter in small groups. Perhaps only a few come in at a time. Many of them have already been vaccinated, and some have not. We simply do not have the medical men to wait there all the time to vaccinate these people. We do not even have enough medical men for our other services in South Africa. How can we still provide that service also? But I want to mention a further problem. Supposing a person crosses the border who has already contracted the disease. In such a case vaccination would not help; in other words, vaccination would serve no useful purpose. If he has already contracted the disease, he might as well wait to be vaccinated in the place of his destination. Vaccination at the border itself would serve no purpose at present. The only protection for our nation is the protection which is accepted throughout the world as the only possible method, and that is the vaccination of the whole of the population. Hon. members know what difficulties we experience in getting all the Whites vaccinated, although we have had a reasonable measure of success. In the case of the Bantu, however, it is an impossible task. The Bantu are simply not willing to be vaccinated unless one practically forces them. One can evolve no method of ensuring that every single Bantu is vaccinated. One can look to see whether they have the vaccination marks on their arms. Unfortunately, however, all of them do not carry that evidence with them. Some of them are immune without having been vaccinated. In some cases the vaccination marks disappear. Therefore, when dealing with the Bantu, one is faced with a tremendous problem. Our law makes it compulsory for every person to be vaccinated. The law compels every school going child to be vaccinated. In spite of the continual propaganda and the lectures constantly being given at schools, we still find this laxity. Films are continually being shown in this regard, and posters are displayed everywhere. It is a serious problem when one is dealing with a large population, the majority of which are still very primitive. Ours is not the only country where such things happen. From time to time there is an outbreak of smallpox in all Western countries. South Africa, however, is contiguous to the rest of Africa and near to the East, whence smallpox is carried in from time to time. That is one of the things one cannot stop in South Africa. In fact, we shall only be able to protect ourselves against such things when the country has been fenced in completely so that there is no illegal influx. Then the Department will be able to ensure that nobody will be allowed to enter the country unless he has either vaccination marks or a certificate or some other proof that he has been vaccinated.

I want to compliment the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) on the manner in which he has brought this really important matter to the notice of this House. I think he was very generous in the attitude that he adopted in dealing with this matter. But I am not altogether satisfied with the explanation of the hon. the Minister.

I fully realize how difficult it is to try to vaccinate the whole country successfully. A lot of difficulties automatically arise. But the problem is simple here, Sir. There are ports of entry into South Africa which are not properly manned. These ports of entry do not take into consideration the necessity for proper scrutiny of those people who come into our country from outside. It had been admitted here that the woman and her family arrived at a port of entry. The woman had apparently been vaccinated but the children had not been vaccinated. I want to know why those children were allowed in. It is obvious that officials at ports of entry must be instructed that nobody who does not carry a certificate can enter our country. If there is doubt or if the certificate is not available that person must be detained not less than 12 days before being allowed to enter.

We have a further difficulty. There must always be people at our ports of entry who are able to vaccinate. It is not necessary to have a team of doctors for that purpose. It is the work of the Department to train vaccinators. They need not be qualified doctors. The trained vaccinators must be able to vaccinate people who arrive at our borders and cannot produce evidence of vaccination. I want to warn the hon. the Minister not to take scratch marks into consideration in the case of the non-Whites. Because of tribal customs we find that many Natives have scratch marks on their bodies. They have those marks either on the arms or the legs or on other parts of their bodies. That in itself must not be regarded as evidence of vaccination because it may simply mean a visit in the past to a witch doctor. Those marks may have nothing whatsoever to do with vaccination. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that in addition to all certificates that must be carried by all Native children in our country to show that they have been vaccinated those Natives who carry reference books must have a stamp in that book indicating that he has been successfully vaccinated. That has got to be done.

You did not want reference books at the time.

When we return to our country from a visit overseas we have to have evidence on our passports that we have been vaccinated. If a precaution can be taken surely he must not be so petty as to bring up that matter. We are much more serious in our attempts to obviate a further outbreak.

Furthermore, I want to know why the hon. the Minister did not have sufficient supplies of the latest drugs that is in use. He said that he was not quite sure whether it is 100 per cent effective in curing the disease. It has perhaps been proved that this drug does cure the disease but I think the time has come for a country, which has a mixed population such as we have here, in which there is so much movement from place to place, to keep stocks of these drugs. Such stocks must be kept for emergencies. That will be of a very low cost to the country when you compare what it has cost this country to vaccinate those 300,000 people.

I think the lymph supplies we have in this country should be rechecked. It is common knowledge amongst doctors that time and again vaccination does not take. In very many cases that is due either to the staleness of the vaccine or due to the vaccine not having been prepared properly.

Have you any proof for that insinuation?

What insinuation?

That we are using vaccine that is not potent.

Let me tell the hon. the Minister that any doctor who has vaccinated people receives a form from his, the Minister’s Department on which three items appear. One of them asks: Has the person been vaccinated three times unsuccessfully? That appears on the Minister’s own form. It allows for three occasions on which vaccination may not have been performed successfully. If that person has been vaccinated three times unsuccessfully he need not be vaccinated. Why does the vaccine not take? Firstly, because the vaccination was not done properly; secondly, the person is immune to vaccination and, thirdly, the lymph is at fault. The Research Institute will tell you that after a certain number of days you should return the vaccine. It is no good the Minister telling me anything about these things; I happen to deal with them practically every day of my life. I am not insinuating that our laboratories are not producing first-grade vaccine. I never said that. I did say that we must be sure that the vaccine is of sufficient potency to vaccinate the person successfully. It is the job of the doctor to make sure of that.