I am sorry I was not aware of the fact that a motion was going to be moved at the appointed time, and I was unable therefore to reply yesterday evening to the points raised by hon. members in this debate. I should have liked to reply yesterday evening when the various points raised here were still fresh in the memories of hon. members, but perhaps it is just as well that I reply at this stage because there may be a calmer atmosphere now than there was yesterday evening when this clause was under discussion. I should like to react to a few points which hon. members raised in connection with Bantu women in the urban areas and their entry into the urban areas and explain how the legislation that we are dealing with here affects their position. This is a subject which preoccupies the minds of many people and I should like to deal with it step by step and I want to express the hope that hon. members will consider the matter calmly. I want to remind hon. members of something which I mentioned in my reply to the second-reading debate when I pointed out that the provisions in Section 23 (1) (d) of the Urban Areas Act which now disappear because that section is being repealed, are provisions which again appear, in an amended form and with slight omissions, in various clauses of this Bill.

There has always been a good deal of misunderstanding with regard to Section 23 (1) (d), not only in this House but also throughout the country and even on the part of local authorities. This is a very old provision which has been applicable for many years. In terms of that provision the State President may proclaim areas but—and hon. members should note this very carefully—simultaneously with the proclamation of the areas, or in a subsequent proclamation, there must be a further proclamation fixing a date on which the influx control machinery in respect of women, as incorporated in Section 23 (1) (d), will come into operation. It is that specific proclamation of the date on which the influx control machinery for women will come into operation which is so frequently lost sight of. It is only when this specific proclamation has been promulgated that steps can be taken, and it is very interesting to note, as I have said before, that there are only two places in South Africa where this proclamation in terms of Section 23 (1) (d), which provides for influx control over women, has been put into operation specifically, namely Greytown and Durban. But, as the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) said at some stage or other, other local authorities have in fact acted in accordance with the spirit of Section 23 (1) (d) in spite of the fact that it has not been put into operation specifically by way of proclamation. It is, of course, unlawful and wrong to act in that way. These things can only come to our knowledge by way of inspections, and I know that such cases have been discovered from time to time. Here I have in mind the constituency of the hon. the Deputy-Chairman, for example. We discovered that Klerksdorp was one of the places which were acting in accordance with the spirit of Section 23 (1) (d) without that section having been put into operation specifically by way of proclamation. In cases of this kind we point out to the local authorities concerned—that has been the procedure in the past—that they cannot act in this way unless the section has been put into operation specifically.

Let me first sum up now what precisely has to be done where the procedure of Section 23 (1) (d) has been put into operation specifically by proclamation. This section deals with two things as far as the Bantu woman is concerned. It deals with her work and it deals with her residence in the urban area in question, and it prescribes that the necessary documents must be issued by the local authority; in other words, that she must obtain written permission from the local authority. But in the second place she also has to obtain written permission from the Bantu Affairs Commissioner of her home district, the district from which she comes, whether it be a rural district in the White areas or a district in the homelands of the Bantu. Thirdly, it provides that if the Bantu woman is under the age of 21, she must also have a certificate from her parent or her guardian to the effect that she has been granted permission to go to the urban area in question. Fourthly—and these are the only four provisions—it provides that there must be housing for her in the urban area to which she goes. That housing may be provided in all sorts of ways—in a home, in an ordinary residence, as a boarder, etc. In addition to that it provides—this only applies to a Bantu woman who goes to an urban area where she has a father or a husband who has worked there for two years. In addition to all that there is still this further point that this permission which is granted to her by the local authority concerned may be withdrawn at any time. That was the position long ago, and, as I have said, there are only two local authorities which lawfully invoked this provision and both of them asked that it be put into operation as far back as the ’thirties. In 1945 when this Act which we are now amending was consolidated, and even after 1945, there was still no country-wide statutory influx control such as has been in operation since 1952 under Section 10 of the Urban Areas Act. It was only in the proclaimed areas, therefore, that Section 23 (1) (d) to which I have referred operated, and it must be remembered that in those days areas of this kind could consist simply of large mining concentrations. That was subsequently changed. Apart from that there was perhaps sporadic influx control in certain places by way of proclamation, but there was not the sort of permit control that we have had over the past 14 years in terms of Section 10 of the 1952 Act. In 1952 we introduced the system of permit control, for which we made provision in Section 10 and which was instituted on a country-wide basis, in other words, in proclaimed areas, as it was then worded, and not only in places where there were large mining concentrations, and secondly, it was introduced in respect of all urban areas. In other words, this Government, by means of that provision in the 1952 Act, really increased the opportunities of applying influx control over the entry of Bantu women. Hon. members should understand these things perfectly clearly because they are very important.

In 1952, with the introduction of Section 10 and with the control for which that section made provision, we therefore duplicated to a large extent those measures which had existed potentially all these years under Section 23 (1) (d) but which had to be put into operation specifically. All those provisions were repeated in Section 10 (1) in an adapted form, except that Section 10 of the 1952 Act made no reference again to a two-year period of residence by the Bantu husband or guardian. To sum up therefore it amounts to this that Section 10 (1) (d) of the Urban Areas Act covers precisely the same field as the field which was potentially covered by the old Section 23 (1) (d) and which was actually covered where that section was specifically put into operation, with this difference that Section 10 made more concessions to the Bantu woman because it enlarged the areas in which Bantu women could obtain those concessions. In other words, the deletion of Section 23 (1) (d) which is under discussion at the moment does not represent a deprivation of rights, because the provisions of this section are already covered, and more than amply covered, by Section 10 (1) (d) of the existing legislation.

I come now to a point which has been raised by the hon. member for Houghton, and that is what the position is with regard to the minimum of seven days and the maximum of 14 days for which an influx permit could be given, under the old section, to Bantu women who wished to seek work in the urban areas. My reply to that is that opportunities of employment under these new measures that we are proposing here fall entirely under the labour bureau, and this sort of permission to make the period, during which the Bantu woman can seek work at least seven days and at most 14 days is one which the bureau will be able to grant to such a Bantu woman in terms of its regulations. Moreover, the Act used to talk about a minimum of seven and a maximum of 14 days, but the bureau will be able to grant permission for longer than 14 days if the circumstances justify it. Then hon. members must also remember that the new sub-section (2) which we are incorporating in Section 10 of the Act provides, amongst other things, that in granting such permission certain conditions may be imposed; it is possible therefore to attach conditions to the permission to remain for seven to 14 days, and the period can even be extended beyond 14 days.

The grounds upon which this can be done are the statutory grounds of the past and the statutory grounds of the present time and of the future. Let us bear this in mind and then apply it to certain specific examples, as mentioned in the three questions which the hon. member for Houghton put to me and in the series of questions put to me by the hon. member for Durban (North).

I have been asked, for example, whether women can only enter an urban area for 72 hours, or whether they may still enter as visitors; whether they will be able to enter the urban area to seek work and also for the purpose of visiting. I propose now to deal with all these questions.

It is perfectly clear that a Bantu woman, without any prior permission, will still be able to enter an urban area for 72 hours. What about a visit for longer than 72 hours? There the reply is: “Yes”, it is possible that she may be allowed to come as a visitor, either to visit or to look after somebody who is ill, for a longer period than 72 hours, but then, of course, she must have the necessary authority, the necessary documents and the necessary permission and she must comply with the requirements. What are those requirements? The documents which are prescribed in this Bill are the following: She must have the necessary permit under the new Section 10 (1) (d), and that permit may be for any period within the discretion of the person who issues it. Hon. members must not ask me now for what period the permit will be granted. It may be for a week or two weeks or a month. It will depend on the various persons and on the circumstances. But the point is that if a genuine case can be made out as to why it is necessary for the Bantu woman to visit the urban area for a certain period, then the person issuing the permit has a discretionary power. But in exercising that discretion he must have regard to the housing conditions; he must take into account the question as to whether there will be housing for her. Housing, as I said a moment ago, may assume various forms such as living in a house or a hostel, or boarding or living with certain people temporarily. This idea of taking into account the question of housing availability for Bantu women is not a new concept. I have already indicated that it is an old concept. Furthermore, it must be noted in that Bantu woman’s book that permission has been granted to her. And let me say in parenthesis, for the information of hon. members, that if she is not given the permission sought by her she can appeal to the Chief Bantu affairs commissioner.

I want to remind hon. members that in the case of this Bantu woman who enters the urban area for the purpose of visiting, she cannot, in terms of the Act or in terms of the regulations, be required to obtain an efflux control document from the Bantu affairs commissioner in the district from which she comes, and, moreover, her guardian is not required to give a certificate. The guardian only has to give a certificate where the woman comes here to seek work. Sir, I have dealt now with the case of the Bantu woman who comes to the urban area on a visit and there is nothing more one can say about it unless one wishes to oppose it.

I come now to the Bantu woman who wants to come and work here. There are two ways in which she can come. The one is the correct way and the other is the individualistic or wrong way. Let me deal first with the correct way. The position here is largely the same as in the case of the Bantu male. She herself may take the initial step or her potential employer in the urban area may take the first step. Hon. members will understand that if she wants to set about it in the correct way, then she must go through the labour bureau, just as in the case of the Bantu male. The employer in the city tells the labour bureau that he wants to engage a Bantu woman and the bureau in the city then makes inquiries with the view of finding one for him. Or alternatively if she takes the initiative then she has to approach the local labour bureau (which is usually the office of the Bantu affairs commissioner) and inform the bureau that she would like to work in the urban area; the bureau then inquires whether there is employment for her.

Let us be perfectly clear now as to what documents are required when the correct method is followed. In the first place, if the Bantu woman wants to come and work she must have the permission of her husband or of her guardian if she is under 21 years of age; this is not a new concept, it is an old one. Secondly, she must obtain a certificate from the Bantu affairs commissioner, who first consults the Bantu Authority. Hon. members must bear in mind here what I said in the second-reading debate, and that is that there are certain Bantu Authorities in Natal who specifically asked us not to allow Bantu women to go and work in the cities unless they obtain the approval of their guardians or of the Bantu Authorities. That is the desire of the Bantu themselves; it is a desire which is based on their traditions, and hon. members must also remember what I said the other day and that is that there is certainly more reason for exercising control over the movement of the Bantu female than there is for exercising control over the movement of a Bantu male. The third requirement which has to be complied with in the case of the Bantu woman who wishes to come in from outside to work here is that regard must be had to the availability of housing in the area of the particular local authority. The local authority has to issue a certificate to the Bantu affairs commissioner of the area concerned to the effect that housing is in fact available. The fourth requirement is this: Once the Bantu woman has entered the urban area to come and work here the necessary endorsement must be made in her book that permission has been given to her to work for the employer who submitted the application. That guarantees her right to be here. Fifthly, the fact of her employment by that particular employer must be reported to the labour bureau so that the contract of service can be properly registered. The service contracts of Bantu women must be registered. No fees are paid by employers for the registration of contracts of service, as they have to do in the case of Bantu males, but the contracts have to be registered. Well, that is the position of the woman who wishes to enter the urban area in the correct way.

Then there is what I call the individualistic way, the incorrect way. Here I refer to the Bantu woman who decides on her own to enter the urban area, without making prior application through the bureau. She simply packs her bag, boards the train and comes to the city. Hon. members must bear in mind, as I said a moment ago, that such a woman may enter for 72 hours without any prior approval but as soon as her stay exceeds 72 hours it is no longer lawful. If such a Bantu woman enters the urban area looking for a job, she can go and ask the office for an endorsement authorizing her to seek employment, and her request may be refused. The influx control officer has a discretion under the new Section 10 (1) (d). Her request may be refused or it may be granted; it may be granted for a certain period which might be even longer “than the 14 days previously prescribed in the Act. Sir, in this regard we must note one thing very carefully, and the hon. member for Houghton must bear this in mind: If this woman succeeds, by following the correct method or even by following the incorrect method, in obtaining an endorsement in her book to the effect that she mak seek work or accept employment, then any employer may engage her and her employer will know that it is in order for him or her to employ that Bantu woman because her book will have been endorsed. But hon. members must remember what I said about the necessity to register the contract of service subsequently. In the normal course of events that Bantu woman, unless she has lost it, will have a card with her which is given to her when her book is endorsed and which she can simply hand over to her employer who would then complete and post the card. In this way the employment is reported at the office and the service contract is registered. Sir, I have dealt now with the Bantu woman whose book has been endorsed but I want to add this: The young Bantu woman who was born here in the city or who qualified in some other way to be here—on the ground that she is the dependant of a qualified Bantu—will find it even easier, once that endorsement has been made in her book at the appropriate age, than the unqualified Bantu woman to obtain permission to work here because she already has this qualification in her favour while the other woman does not have it. [Interjections.]

Then there is the case of the Bantu woman from outside who wants to come to the urban area to marry here. If a Bantu woman from outside of the proclaimed area wishes to come here to marry, she can only enter under Section 10 (1) (d) if she is given leave to do so. Housing, as I have already indicated, is one of the factors which must be taken into account and it must be clearly understood that that means housing only in the urban Bantu residential areas and not housing in the backyard of the employer where that woman’s husband is already employed and living on the premises. It applies only to housing in the urban Bantu residential areas and subject naturally to the regulations of that particular local authority. Those regulations vary from place to place.

Let me give a few examples now. Let us take the example of the unmarried Bantu male who qualifies to be here on the ground that he was born here or that he has been employed here for 10 years by one employer or for 15 years by different employers, and who wants to marry a woman outside of that urban area. I have already indicated how she can enter the urban area by obtaining permission, but I want to give another example and that is the example of a widower, of a Bantu who was formerly married and whose wife died. This Bantu has a house in the location; he is qualified to be here and he wants to marry a girl whom he wishes to bring in from outside. It should be perfectly clear that in the case of a widower it will be much easier for the official of the urban authority who has to grant permission to the Bantu woman under the influx control regulations to give that permission where she wishes to enter the urban area to marry this widower because the one important requirement that the official has to take into account falls away by implication, and that is the requirement that housing must be available because the widower already has a house, while in the case of the unmarried man the position is different because he may not have his own house yet. He may he living in a hostel and he will then fall under the regulations of the local authority, which may or may not make a house available to him. But a house is not the only form of housing; there is also boarding. The couple may board with their parents or with an older brother or somebody else. Housing may also take the form of boarding, and this too is controlled, through the location regulations. I admit that the fact that the Bantu is boarding may count against him, but what I am doing now, at the insistence of hon. members, is to review the whole position and to set it out step by step for them. In these cases too the Bantu woman may take the decision on appeal if she cannot get her own way.

Hon. members may say to me that all this hinges on a discretionary power. Discretionary powers are necessary, of course, because circumstances vary from place to place and it is precisely because the situation may get out of hand in the exercise of discretionary powers that there are various forms of control; on the one hand control is exercised by us and on the other hand provision is made for an appeal against the decision of the local official. Those are the methods, but whether they are adequate in the opinion of the hon. member for Houghton is a different matter.

The hon. member for Houghton asked me yesterday what the position was of a Bantu woman who is already in the city and who is qualified to be here, who was born in the city and who wishes to marry. My reply to that is a twofold one. If the Bantu woman who is qualified to be here wishes to marry a man who is here already and who is qualified to be here, then there are practically no obstacles in their way. The only obstacle which may be in their way is the question of housing, but the local authority, as one can imagine, will not be so unwise as to say to them, “Both of you are qualified to live here but there is no housing for you and you must clear out.” In a case of that kind provision will have to be made for them, and the easiest way in which housing accommodation can be provided for a young married couple is by way of boarding if no house is available for them.

The second example is that of a Bantu woman who qualifies to be here but who wishes to marry a man who is already employed here but who has not yet qualified, a man who was not born here and who has not been employed for ten years by one employer or for 15 years by different employers. Here the position is rather more difficult That Bantu who is here and who is already in employment did not obtain that employment in an illegal way; he obtained it through the bureau system. In other words, even though he has not yet acquired the residential qualifications, the bureau approved of his presence here as a worker. He is justified in being here as a labourer. That couple too may marry, again having due regard to the problem of housing. But they are young people and if they are unable to get a house then they can board. They can marry therefore. It must be clearly understood, however, that if that Bantu male who was given the right to work here, no longer does the work for which the bureau allowed him to be here, then he loses his right to be here and he then runs the risk of being told, “You have lost your employment; you were not born here; you have not been employed for ten years by one person or for 15 years by different employers; you can no longer remain here.” In the meantime he has married a woman who does qualify to be here. What is the position then? My reply to that is this. If that Bantu male cannot obtain employment he will have to go, but that is something which the Bantu woman knew from the first day; the Bantu male himself knew it; they entered into this union with their eyes open. They both knew that if he lost his employment then the last vestige of justification for his presence here would disappear. If he has to leave therefore she will have to accompany him. But there is still the possibility that the bureau may find a new job here for him. If he goes to the bureau and proves that he bona fide lost his employment, there is the possibility that he may get a new job here and in that case they can remain here.

I think I have now covered the whole situation as far as Bantu women are concerned. There are one or two minor points that I want to deal with before I sit down. The new Section 10 (1) (c) contains the new provision that Bantu women must lawfully enter the urban area and that they must reside with their husbands in that particular area. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) correctly pointed out yesterday that we were in fact asked for this particular provision by various municipalities. We were asked for it by, amongst others, one of our largest municipalities, namely Johannesburg, which has had a great deal of experience in these matters. I refer to the provision that the entry of the Bantu woman into the urban area must have been lawful. What is inconsistent in that provision? After all, everything that one does ought to be backed by the fact that one is doing it lawfully. Bantu women have all the necessary machinery at their disposal to get to know what requirements they have to comply with in order to be able to enter the urban area. The requirement therefore that the entry must be lawful is not an unreasonable one at all. Let us look at the matter raised here by the hon. member for Houghton, the case of Maphele. In that case we find that the Appeal Court expressed itself very clearly on the question of the lawfulness of this person’s presence in the urban area. How can the residence of a Bantu woman in an urban area be lawful? In the first place the entry must be lawful and secondly she must reside in the right place. The Appeal Court stated the position perfectly clearly in the course of its judgment, which I have here with me; it is not necessary for me to quote it. The Appeal Court stated very clearly that the wife must actually reside with her husband. That was the court’s verdict. I just want to remind hon. members what the position was in this very Maphele case. The Judge pointed out in the course of his judgment that that Bantu woman had resided with Coloureds for a certain period; thereafter she had resided for a certain period with her uncle, not with her husband. Sir, I want to put this question to the sacrosanct individuals outside this House in particular and also to hon. members on the other side: Is it not right that a Bantu woman—just as in the case of a White woman—who says that she is legally married to a man should be required to live with her husband rather than with other people or with her uncle in another area? Is this the right sort of thing when we constantly talk about the bonds of marriage, about family ties and family units? In other words, the judgment of the court in that particular case in fact confirms what is in fact our law; it confirms the words in the Act about which there was a certain amount of doubt, and in this proposed amendment we are now stating the position even more clearly. This amendment confirms that she has to live in the urban area with her husband.

I want to give the hon. member for Houghton another example now, a much more glaring example than this one. I am told that this happened in my own town, Roodepoort. Years ago there was a case there of a Bantu woman who had lived there for nearly 26 years, and out of those 26 years she had lived with her husband for just one year. During the remaining 25 years she did not live with him, and hon. members can use their own imagination in deciding where she lived and at how many different places she lived during those 25 years. In that particular case the judgment of the court was that her residence with her husband for one year out of 26 was enough to regard her as a wife who had normally resided with her husband. I think hon. members will agree with me, in all honesty, that that is rather farfetched. In any event this sort of thing is not conducive to the marriage ties that we talk about so often.

I think I have now dealt exhaustively with the position of the Bantu woman, more exhaustively than it has ever been dealt with before. Finally, Sir, I just want to add this: Hon. members have asked me here for the umpteenth time, “Where must these people go who are not allowed to be here?” In reply to that I want to say for the umpteenth time that if everybody sets about things in the right way then the number of people who are not allowed to be here will be comparatively small and the number of victims of this Act will be small. But if there are certain people who have to leave the urban areas, whether there are few of them or whether there are many, I just want to point out to hon. members that the proviso to Section 10 (1) already contains an instruction to the Minister—and that instruction has stood there for many years—that if they cannot obtain other employment in the urban areas, the Minister must see to it that they are accommodated in the Bantu homelands.

But no work.

The hon. member says, “But no work.” Sir, I want to remind the hon. member of what I have frequently said in the past and what I have said here to-day no less than three times. Let me say to her now for the fourth time that those persons may even be taken to other places within the White area, outside of the Bantu homelands, in order to place them in employment if they call in the assistance of the labour bureau. It is because the Act provides that they have to go back to the Bantu homelands that we have accepted the policy of doing everything that can possibly be done to promote development within the Bantu homelands and just outside of the homelands so as to be able to provide more and more employment opportunities for the Bantu.

I think I have now dealt fully with all the matters raised here. I do not know whether the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) still wants to put his question to me. It looks as though I have already replied to it.

The hon. the Deputy Minister dealt with the question of the availability of housing. I should like to hear from him what his policy is in respect of the question of seeing to it that housing is made available.

If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, I will reply to the hon. member’s question. It is not really relevant here. The position as far as the provision of housing is concerned …

Order! This clause does not deal with the provision of housing.

There is one case which the hon. the Deputy Minister did not deal with. He dealt with the case of a single man who was going to marry a woman from outside; he dealt with the widower who had lost his wife and wanted to take a new wife from outside. He did not, however, answer the one specific question, among others, that I put to him yesterday, and that is this: What about the man who is already married, who now qualifies and who wishes to bring his wife, to whom he is already married, from the reserves to come and live with him in the town. The man is in town already and he is married already. He came legally to work and subsequently qualifies to remain here permanently. In other words he has been here in continuous employment for ten years. He now wants to bring his wife into town; he does not want to polish her off and get a new young wife; he wants to bring the old one in. What is the position there?

The position is the same as in the other case that I mentioned. The application will have to be considered under Section 10 (1) (b), due regard being had to the availability of housing, etc.

In the few years I have been in the House, the presentation of his case by the hon. the Deputy Minister—if I may say so—has improved considerably. He gave us a very lucid exposition of his case this afternoon. Whether he knows it or not, he has to thank the United Party, the official Opposition in this House, for having cross-examined him and prompted him to go into his case so thoroughly that he could give us the statement that he did this afternoon.

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

I merely want to say that he gets very little probing from his own side.

One of the items with which the Deputy Minister dealt very cursorily was the point that I raised late yesterday afternoon, and that was the question that arose in regard to a possible union or marriage between a qualified Bantu male and a qualified Bantu female under (1) (c) on page 63. I must deal now with the speech which was made, apparently in reply to mine, by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). Sir, in answering my criticism of the clause as it stands, and in trying to answer my case, which he certainly did not do, he cited the example of Israel. I have here the words that he used. He said—

He was referring to me—

I want to deal first of all with his reference to the laws of Israel, and secondly, with his reference to the “ras” to which he says I belong. I want to tell the hon. member that if my opinions or criticisms or arguments are, in his view, in any way inhibited by what he calls the “race” (to which I belong, when in fact he knows that I belong to the White race, but to the extent that I practise any faith, I happen to be a Jew—if he thinks that my opinions are less valid for the reason that I belong to that “race”, then I want to tell him that the next time I get the advice I got from him yesterday, from the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) a few days before, and which is often addressed to members of my “race” on this side of the House, and that is to “go to Israel”, I will ask you, Sir, whether I am not entitled to say to that hon. member, “Go to hell!”

Order!

I will ask you, Sir; I will not say it.

Order! The hon. member must moderate his language.

Sir, I said that I would ask you whether I could use a certain phrase. Sir, this is relevant to this clause that we are dealing with. In this clause when we are dealing with people of a certain race, in this case the Bantu, we have this attitude of some hon. members on the other side. It is an attitude of very thinly disguised—sometimes not even veiled— anti-Semitism, which up to now has not been repudiated by a single senior member of that party including the Prime Minister. Sir, I want your protection in future.

Order! I have given the hon. member an opportunity to deal with this matter but he must now come back to the clause.

Well, I sincerely hope that rather than I alone being called to order, for addressing you on this subject …

On a point of order, the hon. member is voicing the views of all of us in this matter. Can we seek protection from the Chair when that kind of remark is made, as it has been made repeatedly?

Order! Hon. members on this side will get all the protection they require.

This has become complete, open provocation and we are not prepared to sit down under it any longer.

I would like to deal, if I may, with the analogy with the laws of Israel, about which I confess I know very little. I am not in a position, therefore, to know whether the analogy offered by the hon. member for Heilbron is in fact a true one. But the very fact that the Arab woman who wants to come into Israel to marry a Jew in Israel has to come from outside, makes her a foreigner. She is not, in this context, the kind of female we are talking about. The Bantu female owes a loyalty to the State, and that State is South Africa. She is a citizen of South Africa, whether hon. members opposite like it or not. Where is the analogy, I ask the hon. member for Heilbron, when he refers to what happens when a foreign Arab woman comes into the State of Israel? Incidentally, I am very happy to say this to the hon. member—that having regard to the Prime Minister’s own statement made very recently in this very Chamber, that the whole world was sick, it is very reassuring to find that that hon. member and others say that we should follow the example of Israel, and think that Israel is the only healthy state in the world apart from South Africa! It is a great tribute to Israel.

Turning now to the clause that I was dealing with when I was so-rudely interrupted yesterday, I want to say this: Apart from the fact that the Israel analogy is not correct, there is the point which the hon. the Deputy Minister made this afternoon. He says that if a qualified Bantu male wants to marry a qualified female, then there is no debate—I think those were his exact words—then it is merely a question of accommodation. I do not want to go into the fact that in the city of Johannesburg the question of accommodation is a very real problem, and that as far as I know there is a waiting list which would preclude such a legal union for four years or more, but what I do want to ask the Deputy Minister to clarify is this: Assuming that the qualified Bantu male —he knows now what I mean by the word “qualified”, he defined it himself—residing in the prescribed area of Johannesburg, wishes to marry a Bantu female who is qualified, qualified in the prescribed area of, say, Roodepoort, which has a common boundary with Johannesburg, then a position arises which is different from that under (1) (c), where the Bantu female is already the wife and “after lawful entry in such prescribed area ordinarily resides” with that Bantu in such area then there is no difficulty because she is already the wife; but where she is not yet the wife, and she has therefore not resided ordinarily with that Bantu, except illegally and, one might say, clandestinely, and certainly has not resided with him as his wife, but she is qualified, within a few yards of him literally, what is the Minister going to say to that proposition? When I point out to him that there are in fact—and I do not rely on the legal ruling of the hon. member for Heilbron, the chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission, who knows less about the law than he does about Bantu affairs—two qualifications here, (a) that she must be qualified and (b) she must ordinarily have resided with the Bantu male, will the hon. the Deputy Minister explain how the verbiage in this particular clause does not set out exactly my objection to this clause, and does not require some amendment by the hon. the Deputy Minister? Sir, it will be a very simple matter to point to the hardships that will arise, but I do not expect that in a matter which is after all—from the point of view of the hon. the Deputy Minister, perhaps, and many of his colleagues—no more than an exercise in legislation, that the hardships involved for others are going to create any real problem for the hon. the Deputy Minister. [Time limit.]

The last speaker dilated on the example I gave last night. I want to repeat that example. The point at issue was not whether the persons were citizens of the same country. The whole argument amounts to this, that we are alleged to be ruining the family life of the Bantu in South Africa. That is the standpoint from which they set out. Their standpoint was not that citizens of the same country were concerned. I then mentioned the example of Israel, where family life is also made impossible for the Arab in Israel.

Destroyed.

Yes, destroyed, because no Arab is allowed to bring an Arab woman into Israel from beyond the borders of Israel. That goes much further than we are going in this legislation. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) is very sensitive when one mentions Israel, and everyone who mentions Israel as an example is suddenly anti-Semetic.

But you are.

You are against the race, not against Israel.

We are becoming tired now of hon. members opposite venting their spleen in this House as soon as one mentions Israel as an example, or as soon as one refers to the Jewish race. We are not anti-Semitic, but the behaviour of those hon. members is promoting anti-Semitism in this country. It is high time that the hon. member ceased to be so sensitive. I mentioned an example here in all fairness and justice, and I want to mention another. In America Puerto Ricans can work on the farms but they may not bring their wives with them, and they stay away for years.

Nonsense!

It is not nonsense. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) was there last year.

He is not the only one who was there.

I did not say that he was the only one who was there. I say the hon. member for Ceres was there last year and he can prove that what I say here is correct, because he visited those places. He specifically concentrated on investigating the matter, and he has also intimated here in South Africa that Puerto Ricans who come there as migrant labourers are not allowed to bring their wives with them. But what is more, on certain tobacco farms in America even Negroes who come there as migrant workers from other states may not bring their wives with them, nor do they do so. Where we apply the same system of migrant labour and say that when a worker comes here to work as a migrant labourer he may not bring his wife here, that is suddenly immoral and everything that is bad. That is all I said and I did not carry on in the way intimated by the hon. member for Hospital. He tried to ascribe all kinds of things to me which I did not say. I want to say frankly that it is not in the interest of the dignity of this House to carry on in the way in which he has carried on here.

On a point of order, may I again read to the hon. member what he said?

Order! Sit down.

On a point of order, may I again read to the hon. member what he said?

Order! The hon. member may continue.

Sir, I want to continue dealing with this clause. I just want to say that we are being particularly fair in this clause, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated. We are doing nothing new here. We have a decision which was given by the Supreme Court last year in a case which was quoted by the hon. member for Houghton. But we have now added a few words to put that decision beyond all doubt, because I have ascertained that a possibility exists that that decision may be taken on appeal, and possibly a different decision may be given which we do not want. We therefore wish there to be no doubt in regard to this matter, and that is why these other words have been inserted.

Leave the Jews alone now.

Sir, that was a very interesting remark from the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg). There are citizens of South Africa who observe the Jewish faith. Does that worry the hon. member?

Sir, it took two hours of debate yesterday from this side of the House to arouse the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us some explanation of the history of this clause and the amendments contained in it.

It was my intention to do so in any case.

… and to give some reasons for moving these amendments. It took a poltroon in the person of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Is that an unparliamentary remark?

Yes. The hon. member must withdraw it.

If that is your ruling, Sir, I withdraw it.

I take it whence it comes.

The hon. member can certainly take it from whence it comes. Sir, it took a number of rather uncouth remarks on the part of the hon. member for Heilbron to provoke this side of the House. The hon. member gave an example here which had no relation whatsoever to the matter that is under discussion here. May I also say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I think the House is entitled to the courtesy of receiving intelligent replies to questions which are raised on this side of the House, and if hon. members on the Government side have not studied this Bill and do not understand it, then it is better for them to leave the matter to the Deputy Minister instead of intervening in the debate with makeshift arguments in an attempt to score debating points, some of which are not on the level that one would expect in the South African Parliament. I feel that this conduct is something which should be very seriously deprecated not only by members on this side but by senior members on the other side. Sir, this particular clause has other aspects to it, because this particular clause, by usage, has become the sheet-anchor of the Bantu in the cities. It has virtually become his Magna Charta. Over the years the Bantu has regarded his qualification under this particular clause as entitling him to permanent residence, so much so that the policy of my side of the House has been to regard these people as permanently settled in and around our cities and in the areas which have been established for them, where homes have been built for them, where family life has been encouraged, where social and cultural activities have been developed for them, where proper recreational facilities have been developed for them, where schools have been built for them, where their children have been educated and where they have continued to seek work. We know that the entire value of this particular right, which by usage has become an accepted right, has been destroyed by the other clauses of the Bill which tie up the whole presence of the Bantu in the cities purely with the question of labour. We are fully justified therefore in putting up the strongest possible opposition to this clause and the amendments brought about under this clause. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that we have a policy; he knows that we believe in applying the normal economic laws as far as labour is concerned. We regard it as a fact that the Bantu is integrated in the economic life of this country …

May I put this question to the hon. member? Will he give us a very clear reply to it? Is it the policy of the United Party that every Bantu male working in the White area, in our cities and on our farms, must eventually be there with his wife and children?

Our policy is that those Bantu who have established themselves as responsible persons in the cities and who do their work in the cities are entitled to enjoy proper family life under normal family conditions.

All of them?

That is stated in our written policy. When I talk about “responsible” Bantu I mean a man who is a good member of society. We obviously cannot go further than that. He must be a settled member of society. This principle of family life is an established principle of our policy, and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that. Sir, what this Bill is going to create is a faceless labour pool; that is all that is being built up under the vast mass of rules and regulations which are promulgated under clauses of this kind. The individual will not be recognized at all, except as a worker.

Order! That point has been made before.

There is one question on which I think the Deputy Minister owes us a further reply, and that is the second question that was put to him in regard to Clause 10 (1) (c). He has dealt with the question of lawful entry into the prescribed area but he has not fully explained what he means by the term “ordinarily resides with that Bantu in such area”.

I explained it fully.

No, I do not think the Deputy Minister has given a full explanation. Those are the two issues that we are concerned with. That is the point that was put to the Deputy Minister yesterday by the hon. member for Hospital and I think he should reply to it more fully.

I gave you two examples.

A lot of heat has been engendered as to what happens in America and Israel, and even with reference to the hell of which the hon. member for South Coast associated himself. I should now like to try to discover what the precise criticism of the United Party is in regard to this clause. The United Party objects to the fact that certain women may not enter with the object of marrying. Who clearly can enter in order to marry, or who can marry without any obstacles, is the woman who is already legally present in the city, by birth or through working there. Who cannot enter the city, except with the permission required in terms of the new Section 10 (1) (d), is the woman who is not allowed to be there within the discretion of the bureau. That discretion is primarily exercised with a view to the labour requirements of the city. The United Party is not satisfied with that. Now the United Party must tell us what they want. The United Party stated its standpoint, very feebly after the liberals had spoken, that they do want influx control in respect of men. They qualified it by saying that it should be influx control based on labour requirements. This Bill provides for influx control based on labour requirements, but they are not satisfied with that. In other words, they want influx control based on a liberal interpretation of labour requirements.

Will the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) now tell us whether every Bantu who is legally allowed to enter the city in terms of the United Party policy, also should be allowed to bring the woman of his choice to that city to live with him as his wife? Is that the United Party policy? If he dare not repudiate that, I shall ask the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) whether he will give an unqualified “Yes”. Surely it is United Party policy which hon. members have been advocating here, viz. that every Bantu man who is legally employed in the city should have the right to fetch his bride to live with him. That is correct, is it not? No, the hon. member for Durban (North) is afraid of the hon. member for South Coast, and the hon. member for South Coast is afraid of South Africa.

Will I be entitled to reply without losing my turn to speak?

The hon. member may speak later.

Sir, I am prepared to interrupt my speech and resume my seat.

Order! Hon. members cannot make their own rules.

Then I appeal to the hon. member for Durban (North) to speak just after me.

Then the United Party speakers adopted this standpoint that the marriages they wish so much to promote will be inhibited by the lack of housing in the cities. Is it the policy of the United Party (a) that the Bantu man should be allowed to enter the cities on a liberal interpretation of the labour requirements in those cities; (b) should that Bantu man be entitled to bring the bride of his choice with him to the urban areas, and (c) is it the policy of the United Party that it is the duty of the State to ensure that a house is provided in which that couple can live, and is it further the policy of the United Party that that couple will be entitled to buy that house, as they always say? Lastly, is it the policy of the United Party, as it was some years ago, that this should be subsidized housing? Will hon. members now get up and speak? They criticize what we are doing here. We say that the Bantu woman who has the right to reside in the city can marry in the urban areas, and there is no control over that. The only control we exercise is that if a Bantu man who has a legal right to be in the city wants to bring in a bride from outside the city, then that bride—I am speaking now of a new bride—can enter only if she qualifies in terms of 10 (1) (d).

Why do you say “a new bride”?

There may be cases where a Bantu resides in the city and who has married a woman who does not live with him at the moment. If that Bantu has qualified in terms of 10 (1) (a) or (b) and he and the woman have lived together according to Native custom, she need only obtain the legal right of entry …

How does she obtain that?

Remaining in the urban area for 72 hours is legal entry. If they have lived together previously, of course they qualify.

How does she obtain legal entry?

I have just replied to that question. But the hon. member should not put me under cross-examination now. I have just summarized the position. Where we make the exception is that where the Bantu wants to bring in his bride from outside, the admission of that bride must depend on the discretion in terms of Section 10 (1) (d) which is primarily exercised with a view to the labour requirements in the city. And that is rejected by those hon. members in the most crass language as being very un-Christian. They must now tell us precisely which Bantu brides and how many Bantu brides they want to allow to enter. What liberties will they allow for the entry of brides? What housing facilities will they provide? That is what they are criticizing, viz. that there is no housing available and that that discourages marriages. What facilities will the United Party provide for the Bantu to have property rights? What facilities will they provide for the financing of that housing? The United Party should tell us that. They should not try to take the debate to Costa Rica and Israel. We have laid our cards on the table. South Africa knows what our standpoint is in respect of the increase in the number of Bantu families in South Africa. I challenge the hon. member for South Coast not to speak about the hell again but to have the courage to tell us what the United Party policy is in regard to the admission of Bantu women from outside the urban areas to live in the urban areas as married women. Let him tell us that, Sir.

The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) seems to indicate that in spite of our clearly printed policy he has not been able to follow it. We have found that schoolboys in Std. VI have been able to understand and talk intelligently about it but the hon. member cannot understand it. Let us just look at the position as it is before us. The hon. member finished on the note that the policy of the Nationalist Party as set out in this Bill was clearly understood by all. I want to say at once that there are so many gaps in it that that is a complete fabrication. The hon. member for Kempton Park nor the hon. the Deputy Minister will clearly answer the question as to how the woman outside gets lawful entry into a prescribed area with a view to marriage. How does she acquire that right? It is all very well saying that when she is there legally there is nothing to stop the marriage. I want to say clearly that this Bill provides—which is presumably Nationalist Party policy—that the man she marries, the man who was protected under Section 10 (1)

1. (a) and (b), shall no longer be so protected under this Bill. She may legally marry him, but if the husband falls foul of the other provisions of this Bill a day after she has married him, not only is he kicked out but he must take his newly wedded wife with him. And then what? They are out and that is the end of it.

Let us see precisely where the United Party stands so that even the hon. member for Kempton Park will understand it. As far as the United Party is concerned we are dealing with the people falling under Section 10 (1) (a) and (b), the people who are permanently domiciled and resident in a European area, now a prescribed area. That is the basis of this clause we are discussing at the moment. We say in the first place that their rights should not be destroyed in the manner in which they are being destroyed in this Bill.

And that is the right to permanent residence. That is the person who has been born in that area and lived there even to the second and third generation, as we have it to-day. The hon. member may deny that but I did not know what he knows about the paternity of the Bantu up to the second and third generations in the urban areas.

Their rights are not affected under this clause.

Of course their rights are affected. These provisions start to undermine their right to permanent residence. Once we accept—as we on this side of the House do— that where a Native man is permanently resident, in terms of the law that applies to him, where he has a permanent right of domicile in a prescribed area, i.e. a European municipal area for the purposes of this Bill, he is entitled to have his wife with him and live an ordinary family life in his place of employment. And it is as simple as that, Sir. As far as we are concerned it is abhorrent to us to place artificial difficulties in his way to acquire a wife and to live a normal family life. It is abhorrent to us in exactly the same way as it would be abhorrent to us in regard to members of any other race. The concept, which hon. members opposite have not tried to hide and which they have visualized from the start, of a big movable mass of Bantu labourers, labourers who move to and from their place of employment, is unacceptable to us. And when a man becomes unemployed he can be shifted out of that prescribed area merely because he is unemployed and for no other reason. He could have worked for nine years in one job, he could have an unbroken record of nine years’ service, but if he becomes unemployed, and he is outside of the 72 hours, he can be picked up, arrested, and taken out of that prescribed area. Does the hon. member for Kempton Park deny that?

Under other clauses.

Under other clauses as well but I am talking about this clause. Do you deny that he can be removed because he is without a job? Of course, the hon. member does not deny it, Sir. He knows that is so. That is the position we are dealing with. To come back to United Party policy: We say that if a Bantu is permanently resident in an urban area and his rights have been protected, we object to the derogation of those rights. We say those people should be entitled to have their wives and children in a properly controlled area, in a proper village with proper housing and so forth. We go further and say, subject to the necessary regulations and control, give them the right to home ownership and a stake in the country in which they are working and making their living. Give them home-ownership, why not? The hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head and so does the hon. member for Kempton Park. I want to say this to the hon. the Deputy Minister: This Native male and the Native female who comes in and marries him are his co-citizens. Why is he objecting to his own co-citizens having the right to a normal married life on their own property and in their own home in controlled areas, residentially and socially separated from the Whites, in the Cape maybe? Why does he object to that? What is wrong with that? Can he stand up in any civilized community in the world and say: “I stand for a policy where my co-citizens are not allowed to own land in a proper controlled area,” an area set aside for that purpose; where they have home ownership?

Under our policy, yes.

Yes, under their policy. That is precisely what we are concerned about. This is the implementation of their policy, their policy of a landless, rootless mass, only suffered to be, as some other citizens, in the area in which they work provided they are working. The moment they lose their job the whole of the machinery of the law is set in motion. As I have said, even if they were born in that area and had lived there to the second and third generation, they have not got the slightest right to remain there if they lose their job.

I just want to clear up one point. Am I right in saying that under United Party policy those Bantu qualifying, i.e. 15 years’ total service or 10 years with one employer, would be entitled to bring in their wives? The hon. member subsequently gave the example of a man who had been there for nine years. I just want clarity on this whether the United Party policy is limited to the Native males having the 15 and 10 years’ qualification or do they envisage something below those qualifications?

I used nine years because it is below the qualification in (b). The qualification in (b) is ten years. Because the qualifications in (a) and (b) are set out, those are the qualifications we stand by. Those qualifications are in the law and Bantu who have abided by the law until now are entitled to ask that that law shall not be arbitrarily changed. I am asking for nothing that is not within the four corners of the law at the present time. In other words, the Native who is there legally, who has been legally employed full time in terms of that particular section for ten years or who has resided there for 15 years and so forth, should not have the law arbitrarily changed. Within the four corners of the law we say yes he should be allowed to live an ordinary happy family life; they should not be thrown back into the reserves, without a job, without security, without the right to own land, except under communal tenure, and all the rest of it. If we were honest in our claim to be trying to uplift these people the way to do it is not to throw them back into their so-called homelands under these conditions, but to uplift them in the areas where they can get a decent job and where they have shown by years and years of honesty to their employers that they are willing to make an effort to uplift themselves. Let us give them a helping hand and give them a chance to uplift themselves and to have a normal happy married life with their families with them.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has done his best, but he has not replied to the question put to him by the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). That question was simply this: Is it the policy of the United Party that every Bantu worker in those areas should be entitled to take his family there? Now the hon. member says he is talking about the man who has been working there for nine years already.

It takes only ten years and 15 years to qualify.

What if he has worked there for nine years?

That is not what the Minister asked. The Minister asked the United Party whether it was their policy that that concession should be granted to every Bantu worker. The hon. member for South Coast did not reply to that. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) was specifically asked to reply to that question. He was then saved by the hon. member for South Coast, because the latter knew very well what the reply of the hon. member for Durban (North) would be. His reply would have been an unqualified “Yes”. I now challenge the hon. member for Durban (North) to tell us, on behalf of the group for whom he always speaks, whether it is his policy that every Bantu worker should be allowed to bring his wife and family with him. [Interjections.] It is no use hon. members making a row. The hon. member for South Coast demanded permanent residential rights for the man who has been here for ten years or longer. He demands that that Bantu should enjoy property rights in the White area; in other words, that he should be able to become a landowner. That is the point, and it is on that point that hon. members opposite differ so radically amongst themselves.

We have now been discussing these clauses for a long time already, and there are fewer than half a dozen members opposite who are concentrating on this attack. Seeing that this clause is now being attacked so strenuously, it is interesting to see how the other hon. members opposite react to it. Is the United Party now allowing fewer than half a dozen members to dictate to it, contrary to the policy favoured by the hon. member for South Coast? He says the Bantu should have permanent rights of residence after having been in the White area for at least ten years. The hon. members for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), Durban (North) and Florida (Mr. Miller) do not associate themselves with that standpoint. They demand—and I challenge them to deny it— that every Bantu man in the White area should be allowed to have his wife and family with him. I challenge any of those three members to deny that that is their standpoint. I just hope that one of the frontbenchers will not intervene again, so that we will not be able to get that reply from those three members.

I am not going to enter into the quarrel between the Opposition and hon. members on the Government benches as far as the policies of the different parties are concerned. I want to say this, however, that when it comes to circumscribing life at all, the co-citizens, whether they be co-citizens who have lived in an urban area for ten or 15 years or co-citizens who have lived in an urban area for one year, one runs into difficulties, as far as I am concerned. One is immediately confronted with the necessity for legislation; all the vast binding machinery of State has to come into operation because a person has not lived in an urban area for the statutory period of ten years or 15 years. These are man-made laws, Sir, not God-made laws. But immediately he has not lived in an urban area for ten or 15 years he has not got the right to be a co-citizen. Therefore to me, Sir, the logic of the whole situation is that anybody born in South Africa, be that person Black or White or Coloured or Asian, is a co-citizen and should be allowed to move freely around South Africa and sell his labour in the best market possible and live with his family where he wants. That is my policy and the policy of my party and it is very simple to follow. It does not involve this vast legal entanglement as to periods of time. Hon. members may understand this policy, but of course they do not agree with it. For them the lives of citizens, be they co-citizens who have lived for one year, five years and now even ten and 15 year in a rural area, are all to be enmeshed in this complicated machinery of control, as if one can take the whole of South Africa and with a wave of this wand of authoritarianism decide exactly where everybody is to work and to live and now with whom they are allowed to live and whom they are allowed to marry. Because if I understood the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly it is now only safe, for instance, for a woman born in an urban area or a woman who qualifies otherwise under Section 10 (1) of the Urban Areas Act, to marry a man born in the same area or who qualifies in the same area. [Interjections.] Of course it is. Because until now that woman did not lose her own intrinsic right to remain in the area. But now, Sir, if the man whom she has married, who is legally employed in the area but does not qualify in his own right, loses his job, she loses her right to stay in the urban area by virtue of the marriage. The authoritarian hand of the Government is now even to determine the rights of people to marry.

That is a natural consequence of marriage.

South African women, as far as I know, have the right, if they marry a citizen of another country, to decide which citizenship they are going to retain. I believe I am correct in saying that. Here we have an African woman, born in South Africa, born in a town, she marries a South African born African, born in another town or in a rural area or reserve, and she does not even have the right to decide whether she wishes to retain her right of urban citizenship. So this is not one of the normal consequences that follow marriage. And the hon. member for Kempton Park should know that. The citizenship right does not apply in the case of White women marrying citizens of another country, let alone from another town.

If I as a Germiston-born woman, for my sins, marry a man from Johannesburg, and he came to live with me in Germiston and he loses his job in Germiston would I have to give up all my rights of living in that town and even my right of earning a living in that town?

Now this is what I want to ask the hon. the Minister. How does he think he is going to implement all this? How does he imagine he is going to implement all this mass of ridiculous, complicated, constricting legislation as far as women are concerned? I know that passes for African women have been statutarily in force for some time but this part of the regulation of African lives has not been implemented up till now. Women have not compulsorily had to carry passes and produce them on demand. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that this sort of influx control is in fact not capable of implementation without making the production of these passes mandatory and he knows that. And that is why it is so in the case of African men. That is why we have this ghastly number of people convicted for pass offences. Because if you have influx control, and this applies to men as well as women, you have to have a pass system. I think the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Kempton Park will agree that this is the way in which you have to implement it. I want the hon. Minister just for a moment to carry his thoughts a stage beyond the printed word of this law and realize what this is going to mean in the build-up of racial friction in this country. I ask hon. members to pause before they go ahead with this because I foresee the most awful trouble in this country if the hon. the Deputy Minister insists on going ahead and tries to implement the strict letter of the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill as it is now going to apply to women. I hope the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), who is after all on the Bantu Affairs Commission and must know the feelings of the African people in regard to the pass system being extended to include women, realizes the amount of trouble that is going to confront this country.

As I see it 72 hours of sacred freedom are now the statutory possession of the African people in this country, 72 hours during which they may walk freely around South Africa, the country of their birth—I am not talking about people from beyond our borders, so do not let us get involved with Puerto Rico or Israel or any other country. I am talking about South African-born women. They are to have 72 hours’ freedom. After that, unless they qualify lawfully to enter this area by virtue of being a work-seeker for whom there is work, she will not be able to join her husband in the urban area. No new wife will be able to enter. I know the object of this is to keep down the urban population as far as possible to existing limits except for self-propagation, the term used yesterday by the hon. member for Kempton Park.

What is the Government going to do when a new lot of ten-year period qualify every year? Do we foresee now that that qualification is going to be removed? Every year more Africans are going to qualify. Africans who were here for nine years last year are going to be here for ten years next year. Is it now going to be the policy to scrap the contracts of these people “in the public interest” because too many people will be living in the urban areas? I would like a reassurance from the hon. the Minister that there is to be no change in that; that a man’s contract will not be summarily cancelled just because he has reached the ten-year limit with one employer or the 15-year limit of continuous employment which would enable him to qualify for permanent urban residence in South Africa.

The other point that worries me too is how labour is now going to be tied hand and foot to the employer. This applies to African males and African females. No African employee is going to dare seek a job which will give him a rise in status or a rise in his wages. Because he knows, even if he were born in this area, the same fate can befall him; if he loses his job with his existing employer he is running the risk of being endorsed out. What sort of a labour/employer relationship is this going to lead to? A man is to be tied hand and foot to his employer no matter how bad that employer is, no matter if he is never given a raise in pay. He dare not leave to seek other employment. And it redounds to the equal disadvantage of any employer who has any humane consideration. Because an employer with humane consideration will be unable to sack an inefficient worker if he realizes that as a result of that the worker will lose his right to live in the area, will lose his right to his home, will lose his right to have his family with him and can be shunted around after dismissal, according to the requirements of the labour bureau organization. I wonder if the hon. members realize the mediaeval pattern that they are introducing into this country. As I have said over and over again, already the life of the African in South Africa is completely circumscribed by restrictions, by laws, by regulations. Every right which he should enioy is handed out like a licence by some official and it is subject to withdrawal by an official. And now we are having this additional thing, and here the South African women are concerned. [Time limit.]

I trust that the hon. member for South Coast will excuse my lack ready grasp to which he referred when he spoke of Std. VI boys being able to understand their policy. I want to make quite sure that I do not attribute any wrong statement to him. I understood the hon. member to say that the policy of the United Party is to stand within the four comers of the existing law, namely, that the Native male who has been employed for 15 years in one urban area or employed for ten years by one employer, or who was born in the area, should be entitled to bring in his wife if she comes from elsewhere. Is that correct? The hon. member nods. So the United Party stands within the four corners of the National Party Act of 1952 which introduced these provisions, and the United Party departs from their 1945 Act which provided two years’ service by the Native male, but also demanded an officer of the local authority exercising absolute discretion to allow or not to allow (the Native woman. I just want to have that clear.

I made it quite clear that I was dealing with this clause.

Yes, I am also dealing with this clause. I am only dealing with the right of entry of a woman to marry a Native male, the right of a woman to enter an urban area to marry a Native male, and the hon. member stands by the 1952 National Party Act.

I stand by this clause.

By this clause as it now stands? If the hon. member stands by this clause as it stands, why does he not come over and vote with us? What clause is the hon. member standing by?

I was dealing with the provisions of this clause and I said so categorically, and I was pointing to the moral of the ten years provision.

Quite. So the hon. member accepts the ten years and 15 years provision and the birth qualification as necessary qualifications for Native males in urban areas, to entitle them to bring in their wives from outside to the urban area.

I said that in law they were protected.

The hon. member says that the existing law protects them and it is his policy now to retain that protection.

Certainly.

Well, the existing law that protects it is the National Party Act of 1952 and not the United Party Urban Areas Act of 1945. Let us get that perfectly clear. Now, the only addition to the 1952 National Party Act which we deal with to-day, is the addition that the woman must after lawful entry into such prescribed area be ordinarily resident with the Native in such area as was previously provided. The whole conflict between the two parties is therefore limited to this innovation by the National Party, namely that we require that the woman must prove that her entry into the township was lawful. In that we are supported by the Johannesburg City Council and numerous other councils. I just want to ask the hon. members: Is the addition of this requirement of lawful entry justification for the wild things which the hon. member for Durban (North) got rid of when he first spoke on this clause and held this clause up to the world at large as an exhibition of the National Party’s ruthless attack on the family life of the Native people? If you are so close to us, if that is the sole new provision in this clause, why this furious attack?

As to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), I want to say that we differ too much to argue, but the hon. member made one very dangerous statement. She said that there is going to be a lot of trouble about this clause, or words to that effect. May I tell the hon. member where that trouble derives from? It derives from the type of meetings she and her ilk are holding and the inspiration She and others are giving to trouble-makers. If they were prepared to see South Africa as a country where we have to find a modus vivendi between White and Black and not seize on every traditional measure of administration as a cause for agitation, we would not have that trouble. If trouble comes, it lies squarely at the door of that hon. member and the people who share her views.

I just want to correct a statement that was made by the hon. member for Heilbron, in which he tried to justify this clause and justify the action of the Minister. He referred to Puerto Rico. I would like the hon. member for Heilbron to know that Puerto Ricans are full American citizens and have been so since 1899.

That strengthens my argument.

If a Puerto Rican wishes to take a job in any city in the United States, and his wife wishes to join him, or anybody else wishes to join him, all she has to do is to go to the airline office and buy a ticket. In actual fact Puerto Rico is really the 51st State of the United States and is in the position in which Alaska was before it became a full state of the United States of America. Finally, I would just like to say that I think the hon. member is as right about Israel as he was about America.

I adhere to what I said and I will not allow myself to be convinced by the hon. member who has just spoken. The stories he tells are in any case not true, and I prefer accepting the word of the hon. member for Ceres to his.

I have here this yellow policy of the United Party, that “running away” policy. If a man is yellow, then he is afraid, and it means that he follows a policy of running away. In this yellow policy of the United Party they say this—

The main premise of this standpoint was stated by the hon. member for South Coast, viz. that these Bantu in the White areas have vested rights, and he said that they were co-citizens of the Whites in South Africa. Now I want to ask the hon. member for South Coast this: The hon. member for South Coast has just told the hon. member for Kempton Park that he stands by the 1952 legislation. The Act of 1952 creates two classes, the ten-year class and the 15-year class, who live here permanently. The hon. member stands by that. Now I want to ask him whether the Bantu who has been here for nine years and 11 months is not a co-citizen in South Africa in terms of his policy, and is the Bantu who has resided here for six years not a co-citizen of his, nor the one who has been in this area for five years? Why must he make such a fuss about the co-citizens of South Africa whom we are treating so unjustly, when he says here that it is his policy to draw this distinction? He must give me a reply on that point.

Now we come to the other point. Who are the deserving Bantu? Are the deserving Bantu only those who work for ten years for one employer, or for 15 years continuously for more than one employer? Are they the only deserving Bantu, or are the others who have worked for less than that period also deserving cases? We should like to have clarity on that. In other words, according to him only certain of his Black co-citizens are deserving, whereas the others are not deserving because they do not have these qualifications. And now he wants them to be given, property rights if they live in the urban residential areas. I want to put a further question to him: I want to ask the hon. member whether he will say the same about the Bantu who are settled in the rural areas? Must they also be given property rights? It is high time for him to tell us what his policy is, because they want to build up a sound Bantu middle class in South Africa.

Order ! The hon. member should bear in mind that property rights are not under discussion here.

Sir, it is relevant to this extent, that they want to give those rights to people who have worked for a master for ten years, in terms of their policy. But I come to the second point. The hon. member says that they want to ensure that the Bantu will be able to live an undisturbed family life. Now I want to put this question to the hon. member. He says we do not make it clear how the Bantu woman who is married to a man who is qualified will be treated, whether he can bring her in, or how she must qualify to enter. I want to ask him: Does he want every Bantu in the city who is qualified in terms of the ten-year or the 15-year provision to have the right, if he wants to marry a woman in the Bantu areas, to bring that woman in in terms of the policy of the United Party, yes or no? Does he want every Bantu who fetches a Bantu woman in the Bantu area to bring that woman into the White area if he is qualified? He can only tell us “Yes” or “No”. Is this included in this phrase, “to ensure that they will enjoy an undisturbed family life”? He should explain it to us. The hon. member says he adheres to their printed policy, but this printed policy does not tell us these specific things. Does the hon. member want, for the sake of the undisturbed family life of the Bantu, to allow every woman brought in from the Bantu area by a Bantu who is qualified here, to enter the White area? If that is the case, I can give him the assurance that there will no longer be anything such as a Bantu area and a White area, because then everything will be simply Bantu area. That will be the result of such a policy. Let the hon. member give us clarity on this point.

I want to come to another point, viz. the so-called right we have heard so much about this afternoon which Section 10 gives to the Bantu. I want to emphasize that it is no right. It is purely a concession granted to the Bantu so as to give him some stability in the White area as a labourer, to give some stability to the labour in the White area. It is purely a concession only, and no right. I have here the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister when he introduced this Bill in 1952 as Minister of Native Affairs. Then he very clearly stated in his speech that he wanted to give the Bantu who has worked for one employer for ten years, or uninterruptedly for fifteen years for more than one employer in an urban area, a measure of security in regard to his residence in the White area, as a labour factor, and nothing more. That is why they are not given property rights; that is why they are given only the right of residence, as a factor to stabilize labour in the cities. Now hon. members pretend that this is a right which the United Party created. The United Party never created such a right. In their 1945 Act they never thought of protecting that stable labour force by means of this right of residence. I want to emphasize that this was never a right which was obtained, a civic right which was then granted. It was merely a right of residence given to a migrant worker in the cities.

Amendments put and a division demanded.

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

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

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

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 48,

This Clause is related to those dealing with the labour bureau and it provides that no one can employ any one at all except through the medium of a labour bureau. As this section was originally enacted there was provided so far as influx control is concerned, a permit to seek work. In other words, a Bantu could come to an urban area, get a permit to seek work, and when he had the permit he was entitled to go and look for work, and when he received his work and made a contract with an employer, the contract was registered, and he was entitled to continue to remain there. That has gone altogether, so that no Bantu can now come to a town and seek work through the normal control measures that we had. But further than that, a Bantu who has lost his employment, and who was born in an urban area, can no longer either go out and look for another job. Indeed the position is that no longer can an employer choose the person that he wants to employ. I hope the hon. Minister will appreciate just how far this goes, and I hope the hon. Deputy Minister will tell us why he finds it necessary to bring in so drastic a measure such as this …

It is now unlawful, and you commit an offence for which you can be punished, if you employ anyone through any other medium except through the labour bureau. Sir, let us have a look at the average housewife. What is she going to do? Or the average employer. He wants to employ someone, and as you know, Sir, we prefer to employ someone that we know something about, that is why we employ such a person and have him in our homes and in our business, because we know him, or we know his family, or we have had him before. Now one can no longer do this, and one cannot get his brother or someone that you know to come to the urban area, where he will get his yellow-ticket, a permit to seek work, and come to you and enter into a contract. Now he has got to go through the labour bureau, and it may well be that there are people with whom he and his family have been associated with whom this Bantu might like to seek employment, and with whom he would normally be employed. But now no one can do this, because you have to go through the bureau. Let us see what is going to happen when someone goes to a bureau. The Bantu finds himself in the aid centre, or wherever it is, a depot where he is put, awaiting employment, and he is perhaps told that all the jobs that he wants—say he wants to be a house-boy—have now been filled, and it is just too bad, but now he has got to go back to the aid centre and they will channel him to some other area perhaps. What about the employer? He cannot go around asking people to work for him, so he says to the labour bureau he wants a houseboy and the bureau sends him the first chap they have and he has to take him, and if he does not like him he sends him back, and this might go on for a long time. Does the employer have to go down to the labour bureau and have a look at all the people who are available and decide whom to take? How will it work? How on earth is the employer going to choose the person in a system like this?

Take an ordinary commercial undertaking. These people employ a number of Bantu and very often they do so in cycles. They employ them and then their brothers, and they come and go every six months, but they keep returning to the same employer, who likes to get them back. All that is to go now, and the chance of a Bantu coming again to the same employer is virtually nil. When my hon. Leader spoke in the second reading he referred to corruption. We will assume that no one will be corrupt, but what an opportunity does this not place in the hands of an official who is the complete master of whether any business gets any labour or not? He determines whether that business will be able to keep going, and he determines whether it will go properly or not, because he not only determines whether it gets any labour, because under the other clauses he can refuse labour in certain circumstances, but he can tell the employer what type of labour he will get. How will he make this choice?

Surely since time immemorial and in South Africa even in our urban areas the employer has always been able to choose the man he wants to work for him. It is a personal relationship. Now that has to go completely and it is all to be done through the labour bureau. The Minister owes us an explanation as to how this clause will work, and why he provides again for minimum penalties. He also owes us an explanation as to whether or not the existing contracts of employment will have to be re-registered, because it says that no person shall take any Bantu into his employment or have him in his employment unless with the permission of the labour bureau. Now there are two classes of persons, the one who you shall not take into employment and the other whom you shall not have in your employ unless he is registered. Is it the intention that every employer is to re-register the contract of employment he has at present? I hope the Minister will reply to this now.

To begin with the last point, the question whether existing contracts must all be re-registered or not, I can give the hon. member the assurance that we do not want to cause unnecessary administrative difficulties either for ourselves or for the employers, and if we can regulate these things in such a way —and I should very much like to see them being regulated in that way—that normally these contracts continue and that re-registration only enters into the picture when the contracts have lapsed, it should rather be done in that way.

Then the hon. member again had much to say about the fact that the bureaux have to be used for placing Bantu in employment. We discussed this at length in the earlier stages. Let me just repeat it again. I very clearly stated how an employer who wants to employ a Bantu must set to work. The hon. member used the peculiar example of saying that the employer would ask the bureau to send him someone, and they might send a man who is no good, and the employer would have no choice. But that is not quite correct. The employer still has a choice in many respects. The hon. member ought to know that there is a fairly large category of Bantu who are qualified to be in the area, and those Bantu can report to the employers, but before they employ those Bantu both parties must first consult the labour bureau. Then there is the other form of choice, namely that the employer can exercise a fairly great choice even at the labour bureau. The hon. member should go to the labour bureau and see what happens there. The employer should not just sit in his armchair and ring the labour bureau and say they must send him workers. It is unwise to just do that. He can go to the bureau himself, or send one of his assistants, and there he will see numbers of Bantu who are seeking work and, in consultation with the officials of the bureau, he can choose from the Bantu who are there. I myself have seen employers coming there and saying that they want three Bantu and then ten come forward and he looks them through and says he does not want this one but he will take that one. He talks to them himself. He need not merely look at them through a window. He tells them what his conditions of service are, and if the employer cares to take that little bit of trouble in his own interest he can have a choice. He need not sit there and blindly accept the one who is sent to him.

The hon. member also asked whether the Bantu could go from door to door to seek work. He should look at page 19, line 22, where regulation-making powers are granted to us to make regulations in regard to work-seeking by a Bantu. In other words, provision is made in the Bill for us to make regulations in regard to work-seeking by a Bantu. That is a task we will tackle in future. It is made possible in this Bill. I have dealt with all these matters fully, more specifically in regard to the farms, but I have also indicated what the position would be in the towns and said that a Bantu could ask for work from an employer but that we do not recommend that procedure, and that we prefer and recommend the other procedure, viz., that the employer can go to the bureau and choose his workers there himself.

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

The object is to restrict the operation of these labour bureaux in so far as Africans who qualify under Section 10 (1) (a), (b) and (c) are concerned. The Minister speaks glibly about the rights of such people now being set out in regulations, but the point I am trying to make is that these people had a statutory right to do so before this new clause was introduced, and the purpose of my amendment is to restore that statutory right. Until now many an African born in the urban areas or qualifying in terms of Section 10 was able to seek work without going through all the machinery of the labour bureaux, and once he found work, his contract could be registered. But he had a statutory right to remain in the urban area and seek work. This goes now, and therefore I move this amendment, which at least retains for the qualified African the right to seek work in the area in which he was born or has lived for ten or 15 years. I do not think that the substitution of the right in regulations in any way makes up for the loss of these statutory rights. This is a very important clause because earlier on, when we were debating Clause 8. on the question of the cancellation of contracts, the Minister assured us it was not his intention to cancel any contracts except those which it was deemed to be in the interest of public safety to cancel. I asked him at that time whether this meant that urban-born Africans could not have their contracts cancelled. He said this had nothing to do with the continued employment of such people, but simply dealt with the cancellation of contracts; the person remained and it had nothing to do with his removal. I tried to point out that, as far as I understand Roman-Dutch law, there are two parties to a contract, and if the contract is cancelled by virtue of some force majeur which makes it impossible for one party to carry out the contract, the contract falls away anyway. But he assured me that it had nothing to do with the removal of people. I related it to Clause 48, but I never got an answer from the Minister, and I now ask him again. Surely this means, since the urban-born African has also now to get permission from the labour bureau before he can take up work, if that permission is not granted or that man refuses three times running to accept the so-called suitable employment offered by the bureau, he can then be deemed idle and put out of the urban area. This has a decided bearing on the existing rights of Africans under Section 10 to remain in an urban area and to seek work wherever they like in that area and to take up any type of employment which the worker thought suitable, and not work that the labour bureau or the manager of the aid centre thought suitable. This is a very important right which is affected now, not only from the point of view of the employer, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Durban (North), but also as far as the employee is concerned. One of the rights which urban-born Africans hold very dear is the right to go and look for work where they like without let nor hindrance and without queueing up at a labour bureau to get statutory permission to get another job. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, this is one of the important constricting clauses of this Bill and I think it should be opposed most strenuously by anyone who is against further restrictions being placed on the urban Africans.

We feel very strongly about this clause and we will oppose it. The Minister’s reply has not satisfied us. He says that the regulations which will be published will lay down the conditions for the seeking of work.

Order! I should like to point out that the hon. the Deputy Minister was merely referring to it and I cannot allow a discussion on it again.

Sir, the Minister gave a reply to a question put to him as to whether a Bantu can still seek work from an employer. The question is whether the Bantu, when he has permission to seek work, can seek work himself, and the Minister said that in terms of an earlier clause he would by regulation state how a Bantu could seek work. We say that is not good enough. There is a difference of opinion as the law stands now whether a Bantu can go from door to door seeking work. Earlier it was stated that a Bantu would be allowed to move around freely for 72 hours.

I took it that the Bantu then would be allowed to seek work in the 72 hours, but the Minister has now stated that he will lay down by regulation whether the Bantu can seek work or not and how he can seek work. We do not know how the Bantu will be allowed to go about seeking work. Then the Minister says the employer can pick out his workers, but I am told by employers in this town that this is not so and that unsuitable Bantu have been given to them. What is more, they now have to deposit a certain sum with the labour bureau when taking on this labour in order to return them to their homelands if they are not satisfactory.

But you are talking about recruited labour now.

Yes, but they have to gel that labour through the bureau too. Take building contractors. They are seeking Bantu labour. They cannot get the labour themselves, and in the form they have to complete I think there is a clause which says they have to deposit a sum of money to return the Bantu to the Transkei at their expense, even if the Bantu are not suitable for the work. [Interjection.] The Minister says I am confusing recruited labour with the labour available in the urban areas, but the point is this. In terms of this clause the Bantu cannot offer himself to the employer and the employer cannot seek him or go to the bureau and say he wants a particular man to work for him—there is only one class of labour envisaged here. Before the worker can be employed he must be given permission by the labour bureau to take up employment. We object to that. We say that if the Bantu offers himself to an employer who wants to employ him, they should be able to go to the bureau and register the contract, but that is not allowed. It is no good discussing the matter with the Minister further because the Minister and this side of the House see differently on this issue. But there is a further objection to the clause, and that is that there is a minimum sentence provided for in subsection (2) for a second offence, and also in sub-section (3) there is the presumntion against the Bantu and the employer which the employer would have to satisfy to avoid the inference that the Bantu is working for him if he is found on his premises. The Minister knows what our views on this side of the House are with regard to minimum sentences. We are opposed to it, and that makes this clause even worse.

Amendment put and a division demanded.

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

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

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

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 49,

This clause, I believe, can produce some remarkable results for any innocent White man who, without his knowledge and through no fault of his own, can fall foul of its provisions. It reads—

The position is, of course, perfectly clear in regard to the action of the White householder who may “induce” or “assist” such a Bantu to enter the area, but when he is held to have assisted or induced the Bantu to “remain” in such an area, the position is very different. I put to the Minister this common example of a Bantu who arrives on the property of a White householder in the urban area without the knowledge of that householder, and who happens to make friends with the garden boy who gives him shelter for the night; he then stays on the premises for that one night, but in terms of this clause, the householder has had something to do with allowing this Bantu to remain on that property, and therefore he is guilty of an offence. Furthermore, sub-clause (c) provides—

The onus of proof therefore is on the householder in the event of a police raid on his property—which as the hon. the Deputy Minister knows is a very common occurrence in the urban areas—during the course of which they find an “illegal” Bantu (for want of a better term) on his property. If the police come around to see who is on the property and who is not entitled to be there, the visiting Bantu is picked up and the next thing that can happen under this clause, and does happen in fact, is that the householder is charged because the Bantu who had no right to be on his property remained on that property, and therefore remained in the prescribed area. This European householder or property owner then becomes the accused in court proceedings, and furthermore the onus of proof is placed on him, although he knows nothing about the circumstances under which that Bantu visited an employee of his. for example without this knowledge. If the hon. the Deputy Minister will regard the matter in that light, then I think he may well agree that this particular clause requires some amendment if not in protection of the Bantu, then in protection of the innocent European householder or property owner. If the Deputy Minister refuses to do that, then I can only put it to him this way: If I were to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister “Am I my garden boy’s brother’s keeper?” he would say “yes”; I am supposed to know, although I may be out for the evening, although it may be after midnight, although I may be fast asleep; I am supposed to know that this illegal Bantu has entered upon my premises. I am supposed to know, even before the police arrive there, that he is on the property; I am supposed to know that he is sharing the room with my garden boy who is legally there, and the next thing that happens is that I am supposed to have a proper defence and I must carry the onus of proof that I am not guilty as charged under sub-section (c). Furthermore, the penalty laid down there for the first offence is R50 or three months’ imprisonment. I want to know whether it is not reasonable to say that at least this particular clause should provide that if the property owner or householder so accused has knowingly permitted a Bantu who is there illegally to be there, he will then be charged accordingly. But there is no such provision here, and I put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister, with respect, that viewed, perhaps selfishly, from the point of view of the person who owns or occupies a home in any urban area and whose premises, as the Deputy Minister knows, are always vulnerable—in fact, are susceptible —to visitors of that kind who have no business to be in the prescribed area, and certainly no business to be on the property of the householder or occupier of the premises, this constitutes a serious threat, as it were, to the householder. I put it to him that the only way in which any person in that position can possibly circumvent the arrival on his property of such a visitor, and can possibly obviate the proceedings threatened against him in sub-clause (c), with a fine or imprisonment, is to maintain —personally—a 24-hour guard on his own premises; otherwise he is certainly not in a position to know that he is in the process of falling foul of this particular clause …

You are talking the third language.

… and I would be very interested to hear, if not the Deputy Minister then at least the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) explaining in his third —or fourth—language, exactly how he is going to meet my objection to this clause.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) has exaggerated the provisions of this clause. This clause deals with White property owners who allow Bantu who are illegally in the municipal area to be on their premises. In other words, it deals with people who do not have permission to be in the municipal area in terms of the influx control regulations. The hon. member has now depicted it as if it includes every single Bantu, and as if the owner of that property will land in trouble if a Bantu is found on his property. That is not so.

Please explain it.

I now want to say something else in regard to the penal provisions. I want to say here very clearly for the information of all property owners where Bantu may encroach in this manner that they should be careful as to what happens on their properties. It is extremely unfair that Whites should not be dealt with if they allow Bantu to do things which are illegal. If a White man allows a Bantu to do things illegally, as the result of which he lands in trouble, then steps should also be taken against that White man. It is very unfair that the Bantu should land in trouble and that the White man, who in a sense is an accomplice. should go free. That is very unfair, and the hon. member should please understand it.

The hon. member also referred to the onus of proof. It does not follow that a prosecution will be instituted against the property owner if a Bantu is found on his premises. In the majority of cases there will not even be a court case because many of these Bantu may have permission to be in the area and therefore do not fall within the scope of this clause. But then I also want to point out to the hon. member that we are introducing the aid centre which will handle many cases of this nature and where the matter can be settled amicably. The hon. member therefore creates quite a wrong impression when he tries to intimate that all property owners will land in court. They will not land in court, and those who do will very easily be able to prove that they did not allow those people to be there with illegal intentions. They will be able to prove that much more easily than the contrary can be proved, and therefore the onus of proof is placed on the accused person.

I would just like the hon. the Deputy Minister to make certain points perfectly clear. I think he is right in saying that it will be necessary first for the State to establish that the person charged introduced the Bantu into the prescribed area or assisted such a Bantu to enter or remain in such area, and that it is only when that has been established to the satisfaction of the court that the onus passes on to the accused to establish that he had no intention of enabling that Bantu to be in the prescribed area. Sir. this House should be chary in shifting the onus of proof on to the accused unless a very clear case can be made out for it. I. can, quite see that in some cases there will be. great, difficulty in proving the intentions. Take, for example, the case where a man has been knocked down by a motor-car; he is rushed to a hospital in the area and he is subsequently discharged from the hospital but remains within the prescribed area. In those circumstances, if there were a prosecution, it could easily be established that the person concerned had brought the Bantu into the prescribed area, and no doubt it would be easy to discharge the onus and to prove that there was no intention to bring that Bantu into the prescribed area contrary to the provisions of Section 10 (1). The difficulty in these things is always in the marginal cases, and I can see that there will be cases where it will be almost impossible to establish that there was no intention to enable a Bantu to be in the prescribed area in terms of this section.

Then the accused can prove it.

No, that is just the difficulty. Just as the State would have difficulty on occasions in proving the facts which give rise to the presumption, so there are always marginal cases and circumstances of this sort where the State can prove certain facts and then shift the onus of proof onto the accused, and in the nature of the case it is very difficult for the accused to discharge that onus even if in fact he is not guilty. For that reason one dislikes a provision of this sort, and I believe that the State ought to be able to establish this question of intention rather than put a person who may be quite innocent in the position of being found guilty because he is unable to establish to the satisfaction of the court this question of intention, which as every lawyer in this House knows is sometimes a very difficult thing to establish.

I sincerely hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister appreciates, as I do, the legal analyses of the consequences of the reversal of the onus in sub-clause (c), which has been explained to him by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). But, Sir, before that onus can be discharged, I maintain that a position arises which is completely undesirable. Let me say that whereas the Deputy Minister said that I was exaggerating or enlarging the scope of this particular clause, the fact is that he took the very narrow, almost personal, specific case that I put to him, and he enlarged it! I did not say, as he well knows, that all those employers or householders will he charged. I said that the position that can and may arise under this clause is that the householder, property owner or occupier of a dwelling in the European portion of an urban area becomes vulnerable to this particular clause, although he has had no opportunity of ascertaining or knowing that there was or that at a certain time there is an “illegal” (for want of a better term) Bantu on his premises. As far as they are concerned, the hon. the Deputy Minister says: “Hulle moet versigtig wees met huile eiendomme en wat daarop gebeur.” But my point was that short of a householder— take the Deputy Minister himself—maintaining a 24-hours patrol on his property—and I do not care whether he lives in Roodepoort or in Johannesburg—in a European urban area where there is, to this day, a large number of Natives who have come in from outside, legally or otherwise, I say short of maintaining that 24-hour vigil he is not in a position to know, as he puts it, "wat op sy eiendom gebeur.” He only knows what has happened or is happening on his property—and I can speak from practical experience, not only my own but from the practical experience of my constituents—when there is a knock on his back-door in the early hours of the morning, and he finds that there is a policeman there who says, “I have found this Native on your property and he cannot satisfy me that he has any right to be there; what have you got to say?” Naturally the householder, if he is in that position, will say, "I know nothing about this,” but according to this provision it is still a question of whether he has been a party to enabling or assisting the illegal person to be in the area or to remain in the area, wittingly or unwittingly. Sir, I am obliged to believe the words in this clause, and not what the Minister says is intended or what he will not allow to happen. Here you have the situation that this person, being the householder or occupier of property, finds himself in a very serious difficulty. Apart from the fact that he can be charged—and I say again that I do not suggest that every such person in those circumstances will be charged, but he can be charged—then on top of that he has to prove that he had no “intention”. This creates a difficult position, which I sincerely believe is first of all unfair to such a European, being the householder or occupier of the property, and secondly, entirely unnecessary. If, in fact, the Bantu can produce documentary proof that he is entitled to be in the prescribed area, then surely he himself can discharge the onus of proof; why bring in the householder, who only discovers that the man was or is on his property when the police tell him, “We have just found this Bantu here; what have you to say?” If the hon. the Deputy Minister will confine himself to the case which I put to him, instead of enlarging it to cover every European householder in an urban area and then suggesting that I said that they would all be charged, then we might get a reasonable explanation—which I hope we will now get.

I agree whole-heartily with the hon. the Deputy Minister that the hon. member who has just sat down is over-emphasizing the implications of this clause completely. As I read this clause it certainly does not deal with the house of the hon. member who sees a problem in this clause; it deals with the prescribed areas. If the hon. member reads the clause carefully he will see it provides that a person who assists in introducing a Bantu into a prescribed area is guilty of an offence—not necessarily the person who allows that Bantu on his premises. If a Bantu who is lawfully in a prescribed area should perhaps enter the premises of the hon. member that by itself is not an offence; that is not an offence in terms of this clause because the Bantu in that case is entitled to be in that prescribed area. The premises of the hon. member do not determine whether or not the area is a prescribed area; a prescribed area is something totally different.

But my property is in that prescribed area; Don’t you understand that?

Yes, it is quite right to say his property is in that prescribed area The Bantu who are lawfully in that prescribed area can quite lawfully enter upon the premises of the hon. member but if he brings in somebody from outside or assists in bringing in a Bantu from outside into that prescribed area, that is an offence. In other words, he should really go and fetch that Bantu outside the prescribed area and he must deliberately allow the Bantu to remain there. Let us just look at the verbs in this section—

Read on.

… And further—

In other words, after the hon. member knows that a certain Bantu is not allowed to be in a prescribed area, he assists him to remain in that prescribed area. The hon. member says he will now have to play policeman for 24 hours of the day in order to guard his property. With respect, Sir, that is nonsense. That is not the intention here at all.

When you realize that the onus is shifted in (c) I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). The onus which is placed on the accused person is to prove that it was not his intention to bring a Bantu into the prescribed area who was not lawfully entitled to be there.

How does he prove that?

I shall come to that. He must prove that that was not his intention. But actually I do not think it is necessary to place that responsibility on him because the hon. member will surely agree with me when I say that it is a principle of law that when a person does something it must be accepted that he knows what he is doing and that he is prepared to bear the consequences of that act. In other words, if he does something we must, according to our law, accept that it was his intention to do it.

Why insert the words here then?

The hon. member asks why the words are inserted here in that case. I have just tried to prove to him how innocuous these words are. We must take it that the person knows what he is doing, and if he knows what he is doing, it is his responsibility, even without this clause, to prove that that was not his intention.

May I ask a question? Does the hon. member not realize how difficult it may be under certain circumstances to prove what the intention was?

I admit that it is difficult in many cases to prove what the intention was but in this case the accused is not asked to prove what his intention was. Here he is expected to prove that it was not his intention. He must not necessarily prove what his intention was. I just want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that we must indeed accept, according to our law, that when a person does something it was his intention to do it. In other words, without this Clause he would in any case also have had to prove that he intended to do that which he did do.

I want to ask the Deputy Minister to explain this clause to us. The clause reads—

Section 10, of course, deals with people who have the right to be in a prescribed area because they were born there, etc. Sub-section 2 deals with the case where the Bantu has been given a permit to be in the area. But he can also be in the area for 72 hours without a permit. Paragraph (a) of Clause 49 (b) says—

Supposing I find a Bantu walking along the road to Umtata and I give him a lift into the town. He tells me that he wants to go into Umtata for shopping purposes but actually he goes to seek employment. If he remains there, even for less than 72 hours, I may have committed an offence because I assisted him to get into the prescribed area. I shall be glad if the Deputy Minister will explain to us what is meant by the words “whether or not the Bantu so introduced has remained in such prescribed area for more than 72 hours”. I want to know when I can give a Bantu a lift into town, and when I cannot, without contravening the law.

I think the previous speaker has over-simplified the matter, I think it is ridiculous to expect us to prescribe in an Act when a person can give a hitch-hiker a lift and whether he can do so, yes or no; surely it is going too far to expect that.

I did not ask you.

I know the hon. member did not ask me but I nevertheless tell him that because I think he ought to be told that. Supposing the hon. member offers somebody a lift on the road and asks him where he is going and the person says he is going to Umtata. He is probably going there to listen to Kaiser Matanrima opening their Parliament or he is going there to do shopping. If the hon. member is so anxious to give Bantu lifts along the road he would probably have conversed with that Bantu to ascertain what his intentions were. He would then have discovered that the Bantu wanted to go to Umtata for one or other reason. Paragraph (c) has been inserted with the specific object of enabling the hon. member to prove that it was not his intention to introduce that Bantu unlawfully but that he took him to town for the specific purpose of listening to Parliament, for example, or to do shopping. The Bantu is entitled to be in the prescribed area for 72 hours, as we all know. Paragraph (c), to which the hon. members object, is precisely there to assist the hon. member who is so concerned about the hitch-hiker whom he is going to take to Umtata. In order to contravene the law you must definitely have introduced a person into a prescribed area for a certain purpose. You have to introduce him not as a hitch-hiker but as a person who has not got the necessary permission to be in a prescribed area. If you are aware of the fact that he has no right to be on your premises, because it is not his intention just to visit there for 72 hours, you are committing an offence. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), who is not here at the moment, dealt with the matter completely out of its context. He reads much more into this Clause than it actually contains.

I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he will reply to the question put to him by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). I think the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) was getting very close indeed to the point when he said that there was an impression that Bantu can go into a prescribed area for 72 hours, and that they are free to do so under all circumstances. Well, it is quite clear that that is not the position. The position is that they cannot go in for 72 hours for all purpose, It is the purpose for which they go in that is the deciding factor as to whether they can go there at all, let alone for 72 hours. They only have the right to come in for 72 hours for certain purposes. The onus which will be placed on a person who has enabled a Bantu to go into a prescribed area will be a very difficult onus to discharge because, as the hon. member has said, you pick up a Bantu on the roadside in all good faith and that Bantu tells you that is going in for shopping purposes. He is perfectly entitled to go there for 72 hours for that purpose; there is no barrier there, but if in fact when he gets there he is picked up and it is elicited that he is really looking for work, then he is not entitled to be there even for one hour, let alone for 72 hours. But the onus is on the person who picked him up to prove that when he picked him up he did not know that he was coming to the prescribed area to seek employment. The policeman or the officer concerned, who may be an authorized officer, not necessarily a policeman, says to the Bantu, “How did you get here?” The Bantu replies, “Oh, I came here with my Member of Parliament, Mr. Grey Hughes”. He is then asked, “How did he bring you in?” To which the Bantu replies, “He picked me up on the road and gave me a lift into town”. Mr. Hughes is then in the position that he has to discharge the onus which this Clause places on him.

He has one simple answer; he need only say that the Bantu told him that he wanted to go into Umtata for shopping purposes.

Can he give such a simple answer to get him out of that trouble, in view of the onus of proof which is placed on him here? How does that discharge the onus? If a simple denial like that is all that is necessary, then I can see a whale of a time for people denying all sorts of things in terms of this Act, but I doubt very much whether that is going to be a satisfactory answer. In any event, we would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain this to us if he would be so kind.

After what hon. members on this side have said. I do not think it is necessary for me to state the intention more clearly. It clearly states that if that person assists a Bantu, contrary to the provisions of Section 10, with the intention of assisting the Bantu to contravene that section, he is committing an offence.

How does he know it?

How does he know it? That brings me to the question of the onus. If that White person who has brought the Bantu concerned there is charged with having intended to bring the Bantu there unlawfully and he says it was not his intention, that he did so unknowingly, he can advance as proof that it was not his intention. One of the ways of doing that, as the lawyers in this House will know, is for such a person to make a statement under oath.

Then the matter is finished. He has then proved his innocence and discharged the onus which had rested on him.

I just want to say this to make the position more clear—the hon. member for Ceres has actually done so already—that this Clause is really concerned with the influx aspect. It is not concerned with the housing aspect. To talk about people who live in backyards etc., is therefore not relevant. That falls under the housing aspect, under Section 9 of the Urban Areas Act. This deals with the influx aspect. The hon. member for Ceres has explained that properly.

I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I hope he will take his explanation a little further. He has referred to the case of a Bantu “entering”, but what about the next words “to enter and remain in such area.” I put emphasis on the word “remain”. If a Bantu is found in my Native quarters illegally, if he has slept there that night unbeknown to me and the police find him there, I have helped him to “remain”.

Order! That argument has been advanced over and over again.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

On Clause 51,

This Clause deals with the removal of Natives who unlawfully remain in certain areas. It builds upon the old Clause but it adds to places to which persons hitherto have been able to be sent. In particular it makes it possible for the persons affected to be sent, in addition to “a rehabilitation scheme, institution or other place indicated by the Secretary either generally or specially within a scheduled Native area or a released area.” The power under the existing Clause was very wide and allowed removal to what was called his home or last place of residence or to a rural village. But this goes still further. I think it is a matter of strong criticism that a person who in convicted under sub-section (4) of section ten or sub-section (2) of section 12 or has not been convicted at all but has been introduced by some other person into the area should be able to be sent to a rehabilitation scheme. We have not heard very much about these habilitation schemes and I hope when the hon. the Deputy Minister deals with the points raised by this side of the House in the course of the debate on this Clause he will tell us more about these schemes. What is it proposed to do there? What type of work will be done there? Under whose supervision will it be and for how long will these people be detained there?

It must be noted that a Native may be sent to one of these schemes, if this clause is accepted, notwithstanding the fact that he has not been convicted of any offence himself.

He can simply have been introduced by somebody else into a prohibited area. He can then be sent, inter alia, to a rehabilitation scheme. That seems to be going extremely far. So I hope that will be made clear.

On top of this, any person who is convicted. inter alia, of having introduced a Bantu may be ordered to pay the costs of the removal of that Bantu. It may well be that the Bantu was introduced from a very short distance from the prohibited area by the introducer. But notwithstanding that he can be ordered to pay the cost of the removal of the Bantu right to a scheduled area or to a rehabilitation scheme.

It must be remembered, too. Sir. that he can be required to pay the costs of the dependants as well. One should pause for a moment on the question of his dependants. For the first time into this clause is introduced the power to remove the dependants as well as the Native himself. That is a further respect in which this clause is objectionable. Because some Native may have been wrongly introduced into a prohibited area not only he but his whole family can be sent out though they may have had a perfect right to be there. That again is going very far and we shall be very glad to have an explanation from the hon. the Deputy Minister which will satisfy us on these points.

The hon. member for Pinelands has certain doubts about the rehabilitation schemes. In a certain sense this is a new concept. I tell the hon. member that honestly. I do not think he had evil intentions with his question. I know him as a person who has good intentions when he asks questions. As I have already said on a previous occasion our intentions under this legislation are laid down in various places and they are these: We are anxious to make worthy workers of these Bantu. We want to assist them. Everybody must learn to work for his living. That is why we foresee that we will be able to assist these Bantu in many ways to improve themselves as human beings by taking them to places where we can rehabilitate them as human beings. What we envisage, therefore, are these types of scheme where, if the numbers justify it, we can do more and more of this kind of work.

I want to mention a prototype which falls in a totally different category from this. The hon. member knows, for example, that the Prisons Department is striving more and more these days to teach these people to work properly by means of, what can virtually be called, large rehabilitation prison farms. We do not have prison farms in mind; that is why I say it does not fall in that category. I want to direct the hon. member’s thoughts to a prototype which can be regarded as a rehabilitation scheme. We also think that these sort of cases can be handled by sending them to such places, apart from the other places mentioned in existing legislation. That is all that is intended. The intentions are good.

The hon. member also referred to the family. The hon. member should read the words carefully. It says “and with due regard to his family ties and other obligations or commitments”. It does not say, like the hon. member said it did, that his family should be taken away as well. That may perhaps happen. But why does the hon. member not argue the other way around as well? Why does he not argue that his family ties may perhaps cause other action to be taken? Hon. members opposite always place so much emphasis on family life, they say it should not be disturbed. This is precisely something which compels those concerned to have due regard to the family ties of those people with a view to trying to respect those family ties. That is now held against us and we are accused of having bad intentions.

There is a point here I would like to take up with the hon. the Minister. In line 21, page 69, there is reference to “a Bantu who has been convicted under sub-section (4) of Section 10 or … (line 25) whose employer has been convicted under sub-section (3) of Section 12 in respect of such Bantu,” etc., until line 33 where the employer may have been convicted and the Bantu Affairs Commissioner who has convicted the employer can now order the employee, i.e. the Bantu, whose employer has been convicted, to be sent to his last place of residence, a rural village, a settlement and so on. The point I want to make is that the Bantu himself may not have been charged let alone convicted. The employer is convicted. Two points arise from this. Firstly, the employer having been convicted the Bantu employee can be sent to these various places although no charge has been laid against him. I think if the Minister will read this clause carefully he will see that my description of it is correct.

Read the first three lines.

The first three lines?—

But now these words follow—

“Or whose employer has been convicted”. Thereafter the Bantu Affairs Commissioner, who convicted the employer, can now at the same time order a member of the S.A. Police, under warrant, to take the Bantu to his last place of residence, a rural village, a settlement and so forth. I am sure if the hon. the Deputy Minister reads it he will see that that interpretation is correct. The Bantu has not been charged and not been convicted.

Here is the point I want to raise with the Minister. According to the sub-section under which the employer is convicted, i.e. sub-section (3) of Section 12, it seems as though it is the employment of a Bantu who was not born in the Republic or in the Territory of South West Africa. It is a contravention of that section which leads to the employer being convicted. He is not convicted because he has a Bantu in a prescribed area who has got no right to be there but merely because he is in a prescribed area and he is not a Bantu who has been born in the Republic or in South West Africa. That is his crime. If the employer is found guilty of having employed a Bantu in such a manner it is a contravention of that section. In other words, he is employing a Bantu who was not born in the Republic or in South West Africa and he is employing him in a prescribed area. In that case the employer is guilty and then the Native Commissioner can order that Bantu to be sent to the places set out here. What I am concerned with, Sir, is to ascertain whether that is indeed the charge against the employer. If that is so then I accept it. The employer is wrong to employ in a prescribed area a Bantu who …

Unlawfully.

Yes, the Bantu must be there unlawfully, and if he was not born in the Republic or in South West Africa. He is therefore illegally there. If the employer has employed a Bantu who is there illegally the Native Affairs Commissioner can, quite rightly, order him elsewhere. Is the charge against the employer that he is employing a Bantu who is illegally in the prescribed area?

You are quite right.

The hon. the Minister virtually said that I was looking at the black side of this clause, as it were, when I referred to the fact that his dependants could be removed along with the man who may be wrongly introduced. He referred me to the fact that due regard had to be taken of his family ties in terms of this clause. One is thankful for that. But surely the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot take us to task if we see in a clause like this the fact that the intention is there to override the family ties in certain cases. In view of the whole context of this piece of legislation the Minister cannot suggest that there is not much evidence of the fact that family ties will be broken and that the place of residence will be changed.

I would like to remind the hon. the Minister in regard to this question of the family ties that Dr. D. F. S. J. van Rensburg, the Director of Bantu Labour in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, in October 1963 made a speech from which it was quite clear that there was a very definite intention to deal with Natives who were in the urban areas on a family basis. These were his words—

From statements like that which are made in the calm of the recess we are entitled to see a threat to the family life of persons who at present have it. I believe that hon. members opposite, when they calmly reflect upon the need for it in their own lives and society, will realize how important it is to any people who form part of this sub-continent of ours.

We are dealing with those who are here unlawfully.

No. Was not Dr. van Rensburg’s a reference to unlawful; he was here referring to the whole question of persons who were in the urban areas on a family basis.

Order! That is not relevant to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, in view of what you say I shall not take that any further. By way of answer to the hon. the Minister where he in effect said that I was showing a suspicious turn of mind in this regard, I say it is against the background of utterances of this kind that one is obliged to be suspicious. After all, the power is in this law to move either the man and his dependants or the man alone. It is true his family ties must be taken into consideration but they cannot be decisive. The decision of the official concerned will be the decisive one. So, while we are glad to have assurances repeated we would be happier if the position were made much more watertight in the law itself.

Clause 51 put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 57,

In the White Paper on page 19, in paragraph (d) there is a reference to an “urban areas commissioner”. This designation “an urban areas commissioner”, as far as I am aware, does not appear anywhere in the legislation. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would indicate whether it is an error or whether it is intended to convey the description of a new official.

The hon. member will notice that reference is made to an official who can be designated for these purposes. I may say that we have long since had such an official in our big urban complexes such as the Urban Areas Commissioner who works there as an official together with the Bantu Affairs Commissioners. Those Urban Areas Commissioners are the people who in practice are in daily contact with the city councils and with the administration of Bantu Affairs.

How is the official defined in the law? What and who is he? Nowhere is that stated in the law.

The words “Urban Areas Commissioner” are used in the memorandum. The Bill states that the Minister can appoint one or other official to do that work and when making such appointment it may be stated that it must be the Urban Areas Commissioner or the Bantu Affairs Commissioner or the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner.

May I ask in which Act provision is made for such an official? In this clause certain functions are performed by certain people and according to the Minister’s explanation the Urban Areas Commissioner will exercise certain powers. We should like to know who is the official who will perform the functions which this Committee are now going to approve, I think we are entitled to know that.

On a point of order, we are entitled under a clause to discuss a matter referred to in the White Paper which is an official document of this House, and which relates to this specific clause.

We are discussing the clause at this stage, not the memorandum.

May we not quote from the memorandum?

Of course, but we are not considering the memorandum.

This is what the memorandum says—

We would be glad to know who this Urban Areas Commissioner is.

I have explained this fully.

May I ask the hon. Deputy Minister whether what appears in the White Paper is a mistake and that there is no such official in fact.

We are here dealing with the Bill, not with the White Paper.

But where can we find a reference to this officer?

So far as one can find any reference to that power, referred to in the White Paper, it is in Section 57 (d) (3) (a), where it says—

Now if there is an officer to be designated an “Urban Areas Commissioner”, who will be appointed by the Minister in terms of this authority here, is the Minister to prescribe a title for him? What is the power of the Minister in regard to this appointment? Does he appoint an official who has already got that title? If so, under what statute did that person get that title? We are completely in the dark in regard to the Minister’s intentions in regard to the appointment of any such official.

Nobody is left in the dark. The hon. member for South Coast has referred to the section to which I have referred to just now, where it. says “the Minister may appoint one or more, officers who shall at all reasonable times have the power … to consult with the local authority concerned …” Now in the White Paper an example is given. The hon. members must read those words in the White Paper as an example of an official who can be appointed by the Minister, and there it gives two examples, namely an Urban Areas Commissioner and a Bantu Affairs Commissioner. But we have to pass this clause, and in the clause we do not use the words “Urban Areas Commissioner”. We say “any officer” to be appointed by the Minister, and it will be either a Bantu Affairs Commissioner, or an Urban Areas Commissioner, or another official. The designation of an officer in our service is not defined by this Bill, or by the Urban Areas Act. The Civil Service Commission also has to do with that.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 61,

I want this clause to be negatived. This is one of the important clauses of this Bill because it greatly widens the definition of “idle” and of “undesirable” under the existing law. Under the existing definition the fact that an African is not in employment does not render him idle as long as he has sufficient honest means of livelihood to support himself and his family. Now under the new definition of “idle” even if an African has got sufficient means of his own, the fact that he is not actually in employment may now render him liable to be deemed “idle”.

I want to point out that this new definition applies to all Africans over the age of 15 and under the age of 60 in the case of females, and 65 in the case of a male. As I say, irrespective of whether that man has saved sufficient money to enable him to retire at an age earlier than 65, or where an African woman has been in service for many years and she is pensioned off by her employer, she can still be deemed to be idle in terms of this Bill if she has not yet passed the age of 60. As for deeming a child over the age of 15 to be idle unless that child is actually at school, or is awaiting admission to a school, that is indeed going very far. Even if that child is simply kept at home in order to attend to the younger children in the family, as very often happens in the case of urban families, because both parents may be at work, and usually the older child in the family is kept at home in order to look after the younger children—even then such a child of the age of 15 can be deemed to be idle in terms of this clause. And having been deemed idle, all sorts of consequences follow. Such a child can be sent away to an institution, it can be sent away to another part of the country without the parents’ permission. simply because he or she is not in regular employment. So we come back to the whole crux of this Bill, which is that the only use that the hon. Deputy Minister and his colleagues have for Africans is if they happen to be in employment of a White man. Other than that they have no right whatsoever to be in an urban area. I think this is a gross injustice, this widening of the definition of “idle”. “Idle” now includes the fact that a man has not accepted the so-called suitable employment offered to him by a labour bureau or an aid centre officer. If on three consecutive occasions he turns down such suitable work, he can be deemed idle. A labour bureau may deem coal hauling for instance to be suitable work for a man who has been in employment as a waiter. I can mention similar instances. He is then deemed to be idle if he loses a job through a fault of his own, according to this Bill, and if that happens on two consecutive occasions within a period of six months, he can also deemed to be idle. Under what possible stretch of the imagination can one imagine that in any other country in the world in the 1960s will a Government dare in a democratic country to deep people idle under conditions like this? I wonder if the hon. Minister would just for a moment forget his colour consciousness. He is always telling me that I am colour blind.

Of course.

I agree. I see people as human beings. To me a human being is a human being.

There are no White men at all?

I do not, see people in terms of colour, I see human beings, males and females, who require assistance and who want to live a normal life, and it does not matter to me what their colour is, nor does it matter to me what their race or language is. I am not a racialist in any shape or form. Under what stretch of the imagination can the hon. Minister imagine such a law being applied to the White working class of this country, a law that lays down that if a man loses his job on two consecutive occasions within six months, or refuses to take the work offered to him by a labour bureau on three consecutive occasions, he is deemed to be idle? Thereafter not only can he lose all rights to remain with his family, but he can lose the right of even living in an urban area. He can be removed thereafter even if he was born in this area, because this section applies also to the exempted class under Section 10. It applies not only to males but to females under the age of 60 and to young boys and girls over the age of 15. This is a grossly unjust provision, and to me it is one of the most repulsive clauses in a very repulsive Bill. Now the definition of “undesirable” is also widened considerably to include all sorts of additional so-called crimes, and they are very widely defined indeed!

Why “so-called crimes”?

Because taking any political action can fall under the definition of “undesirable”. Is it the Government’s intention to stop all lawful means of political protest as far as Africans are concerned, because if that is so, they are really looking for trouble, because if you are allowing no lawful means of protest or political activities, you are obviously laying the way open for all sorts of illegal …

But they must first have been convicted of an offence.

Yes, but some of these offences are so broadly defined. Just having belonged in the past to an unlawful organization makes a man now an undesirable in terms of this Bill.

So what?

Does the hon. member not realize that such organizations were at one stage lawful in this country and that this is a retrospective measure, so that if at any time a man has simply been a member of an organization, a political organization of Africans, he can be deemed to be undesirable in terms of this Bill? Where is the justice in a retrospective clause like this? It is a clause which again affects the rights of people who were actually born in an area or who have qualified under Section 10. This is one of the most dangerous clauses, and the definitions of “idle” and “undesirable” are very wide, and except that the Government wants to have an iron fist over every African in the urban area and to see that he is only there if he is actually employed, working for a White man, I see no reason for this clause at all.

The whole intention of the hon. member with her amendment is clear. The hon. member is against all forms of action against idle and undesirable Bantu here. On that issue we of course differ fundamentally. This form of action which we have in this clause is not totally new, as the hon. member should know. It follows a system which implies a judicial inquiry. I agree we do add a few more grounds for action to be taken. Our conception is based on the idea, on our conviction that the Bantu in the White areas are here for their labour, and if they do not want to undertake labour here, then it is up to us to help them, to rehabilitate them to become more worthy labourers. Of course it is absolutely useless to argue with the hon. member for Houghton on this issue, but I want to put on record our fundamental conception. Of course the hon. member knows that in this clause we also make provision for appeals. And in that connection I want to move the following amendment—

I would like to explain the reason for this. The presence of (e) here is actually a printing error, it should have been (f), but (d) was omitted unfortunately. I want to briefly explain the effect of this alteration. In this subsection appeals are allowed in three cases, namely, in respect of sub-section (7) where an appeal is allowed in respect of sub-paragraph (b) and also in respect of (c), and then (f). Sub-paragraph (e) is not necessary because if hon. members look at (e) they will find that in that case employment can only take place with the concurrence of the person concerned, and for that reason an appeal is not necessary there.

I would like firstly to deal with an objection that we had to the final two paragraphs of this clause on page 89, where it says—

That is the protected Bantu, and then—

We take the strongest objection to this. It means in fact that when such a Bantu is declared an idle or undesirable person, he loses that protection which he enjoyed under 10 (1) (a), (b) or (c), and we think that that is a savage punishment, in addition to any punishment that may be inflicted on him in terms of the preceding paragraphs which I will come to in a moment. We are standing firmly on the principle that these protected rights should remain protected, and we are not going to have them easily whittled away in this manner. In addition to that, I want to draw attention to sub-section (15), which provides that where in terms of the paragraphs, as now amended, (a), (b), (c), (d) or (f) of (7) which involve the removal of Bantu and the detention in custody pending their removal to all sorts of places which are set out, when an order has been made—I want to put it in a positive form: All that is carried out unless the Bantu Affairs Commissioner concerned decides otherwise, and then he can suspend the operation of the order until the appeal is heard. Again we feel that it is fundamentally wrong that where an appeal has been noted, the sentence shall be carried out, unless the Bantu Commissioner concerned so determines. We feel that if an appeal is made the sentence should be suspended and the appeal should be heard, and if it is confirmed the order is carried out.

Having dealt with those clauses, to which we are resolutely opposed, I want to deal with the earlier portion of this clause. I want to say at once that this clause gave this side of the House a great deal of thought. We have given it very serious consideration indeed. The matter was debated at considerable length by members on this side of the House. We are in this position, Sir, that we must recognize it as a fact that there are idle Bantu in many of our towns, and in some cases large numbers. We also must admit that there are undesirable Bantu. For the moment I am not saying that I am sticking to the definition of “idle” in sub-section (2), where it gives a number of cases of people who shall be deemed to be idle, or in sub-section (3) for the purpose of “undesirable”, but we do accept it as a fact that in our towns there are large numbers of idle and undesirable Bantu, as there are of other racial groups for that matter, and we recognize the difficulty of definition. We accept that as a practical difficulty. We have come to the conclusion that more than the letter of the law, more than a strict definition, because of the wide powers that are being conferred here, the fair administration and even justice to be meted out to Bantu who may be deemed to fall within the ban, is a matter of administration. In other words, if you have got a Native Affairs Commissioner or a judicial officer who has before him people who are brought up in terms of the definition as idle persons or undesirable persons, you may in the one case have a sympathetic and understanding officer and you may get an acquittal; you may in the case of a different officer under precisely similar circumstances get a conviction. Sir, that is not unique in our law. We accept that also. That is commonplace. But we realize that there is a very peculiar difficulty and it is a difficulty where we would like to help if we could on this side of the House, and because of that difficulty we do not propose to take part in any debate as to whether the precise definitions of “idle” or “undesirable” persons are strictly within the compass of what we ourselves might regard as idle or undesirable. We feel that this particular portion of this clause must hang upon its implementation. If in fact in the implementation of this clause— and there I am excluding altogether the protected people falling under Section 10 (1) (a), (b) and (c) whom I have dealt with, because it is inexcusable in my opinion to bring them within the purview of the early part of this clause and their inclusion makes this clause unacceptable. It is fatal, as far as we are concerned, to our approval of the clause, and we shall divide on it. But I want to make it abundantly clear that the question of the idle and the undesirable Bantu we must leave to the administration. We do not want to fetter the hands of people who may be sympathetically administering this law, people who have an attitude of goodwill towards the law-abiding Bantu and who may even help the law-abiding Bantu, because it will remove from their number those undesirable elements, however they are defined. We accept that there are cases where undesirable elements are just as great a menace to the law-abiding Bantu as they are to the law-abiding Whites. We accept that, and we recognize the difficulty of definition and of enshrining the concepts one has in one’s mind in legal language for the purpose of a clause like this. So that for the time being we leave it and we must simply say to the Minister …

You said you wanted to help. How?

By not criticizing. [Interjections.] We think, in view of the amendments the Minister has moved, our criticism has served a very useful purpose. May I say in passing that that must not be misconstrued as meaning that there is an open licence now for the Government to go ahead. The actual exercise of authority in terms of this clause will be scrutinized most carefully by this side of the House, because if there should be an abuse of power, if it is used callously for the removal of Bantu for no other reason than for some little trivial offence, if it is felt that the hand of the law can grab them in the interest of the Nationalist Party philosophy to take them away out of the White areas, the prescribed areas, we shall have a great deal to say about it. In other words, we are prepared to leave this to the administration of the officials of the Department and trust that they will exercise their discretion in a sympathetic and just manner.

I think it is my duty to express my appreciation of the points taken by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) in connection with this matter, and I undertake to assure the hon. members of the Opposition that we will not misconstrue the words of the hon. member in this regard. I am sorry now to learn that it was unfortunately made impossible for this hon. member and perhaps for other hon. members opposite also to be of a little more assistance by means of proposals and amendments to improve the clauses wherever possible. I appreciate that difficulty of hon. members opposite also, and in my turn I would like to appeal to hon. members that where the hon. member for South Coast has just said they will leave it to the administration to see how the thing will work in practice …

Just like the 90-day detention clause.

I hope the hon. members will also assist the officials throughout South Africa in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to support what the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has said in regard to the administration of the very wide provisions entailed in this particular clause. The question of the idle and undesirable element among the Bantu people is one which has caused a great deal of concern among all sections of the community. However, in view of the provisions of this clause it is obvious that the definition whereby a person can be termed idle is considerably enlarged upon, and I am concerned with the administration of these very wide provisions. The definition here is set out on page 81 and it exempts certain persons who do not come under the regulations of the labour bureau, such as persons under the age of 15 and females over the age of 60 and males over the age of 65. My concern is with regard to the position of the older worker amongst the Bantu who might be declared idle. We know that Bantu labour is mainly physical labour and in times when employment is difficult to find I can foresee the anger of persons being dealt with perhaps in the age group of 50 to 65 years, where employment opportunities are very limited. Taking that into consideration and realizing the provisions at the end of this clause whereby persons forfeit their residential rights, it would appear that difficulty in administration may arise where an older worker who is perhaps unable to accept the employment offered could be, declared idle and lose those residential rights in an area where he might have lived for a great number of years, and indeed he might have been born there. The manner in which these people will be dealt with is indeed drastic. I hope that the Deputy Minister will be able to give an assurance that in regard to the administration, particularly now that the definition of “idle” has been widened to include the question of employment, that will be dealt with in a manner which will not cause hardship to these persons. The other aspects of this clause relating to the way in which these persons shall be dealt with also gives cause for a great deal of concern. Provision is made here for these persons to be committed to various institutions, and I should like to know from the Deputy Minister what he has in mind in this regard. In the course of last year I asked the Minister a question in connection with the establishment of work colonies for the Bantu people, and he replied that the matter was being held in abeyance pending the submission of a report by an inter-departmental committee on idle and non-working Bantu in the urban areas. He added that the report had been submitted and was being considered. Subsequent to that I asked the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration a question, earlier this Session, in regard to the establishment of work colonies for the Bantu people and the reply was that no such institution had yet been brought into operation. The Retreats and Rehabilitations Centres Act of last year incorporates almost exactly the same provision as those provided for here under the definition of “idle persons”, apart from the portion dealing with those who fail to accept work and those who lose their employment for various reasons. I would like to know from the Deputy Minister whether all these Bantu will be dealt with virtually in terms of the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act of 1963.

The question of the younger person is one which also gives us cause for a great deal of concern because we realize that in terms of the Children’s Act of 1960, children who may be declared in need of care are specifically defined in that Act and the Act is also applicable to Bantu people who may therefore also be declared in need of care by a Bantu court. The Children’s Act defines most clearly how these people shall be dealt with when they are under the age of 18 years. Under the provisions of this clause persons may be dealt with from the age of 15 years, and although it is stated in paragraph (7) (f) on page 87 that persons between the ages of 15 and 19 shall be dealt with in a certain manner and that they may be sent home to their parents or to an institution established under any law, we know that the hon. the Minister has established youth camps, which are virtually Bantu children’s homes and reform schools, and I should like to know from the Deputy Minister whether it is the intention to deal with these younger persons administratively having due regard to the terms of the Children’s Act of 1960 which gives protection to persons under 18 years of age. Under the provisions of this clause they can be dealt with severely; they may even forfeit their residential right. These provisions therefore are very far-reaching, and therefore I shall be pleased if the hon. the Deputy Minister will enlighten us as to how these persons falling under the categories I have mentioned will be dealt with.

Before the hon. the Minister replies I just want to ask one question with reference to the very reasonable criticism expressed by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). It concerns the execution of a removal order pending an appeal. I think in that respect we should actually distinguish between those Bantu who have not yet attained the 10 and 15 years qualification and those who have attained it. Had time permitted I think I would have been able to advance an adequate argument to the hon. member for South Coast why those who have not yet qualified should be removed immediately pending the outcome of their appeal. But in the case of those who have already been there for 10 or 15 years a strong case can be made out, I think, that they should be allowed to remain where they have qualified until such time as their appeals have been disposed of. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consider that and perhaps move an amendment in the Other Place in terms whereof the execution of the removal order pending the appeal in respect of those who have qualified under the ten and 15 year periods, will be stayed, as suggested by the hon. member for South Coast. As far as the other category is concerned, I do not agree with the hon. member for South Coast.

Sir, if I understood the hon. member for South Coast correctly then the United Party does not intend to oppose this clause at all.

We are.

Well, I am very glad to hear that. [Interjections.] I am well aware of what this particular clause does, which is why I was so very nervous to hear that the United Party, as I understood it, was not going to oppose this clause.

You misheard.

I am glad to hear that and I accept that I did not hear correctly. What I do not like is this reliance on the assurances of the Minister that this is going to be administratively handled in the most lenient fashion. I have become very sceptical of ministerial assurances about the way in which laws are administered in this country, and particularly a law as drastic as this one because not only does it affect the rights of urbanborn Africans, but they can be removed at any time. Sir, the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) says that he is prepared to draw a benevolent distinction between Africans who have already qualified, who may in fact be allowed to remain here if the hon. the Minister accepts his suggestion, pending the appeal, and those who have not qualified and who must be moved forthwith. I would have thought that it is a normal concept of justice that until an appeal has been heard and dismissed, people should be left where they are. Why is he drawing this distinction?

Is he assuming immediately that every appeal in the case of a man who does not quality is automatically going to be dismissed? I put it to him that unless he is assuming that, why on earth is he against those people being allowed to stay pending the hearing? Pending their appeal people should not be removed. Surely they should be entitled at least, if the appeal is to mean anything at all, to be allowed to stay where they are until that appeal has been heard and dismissed. I cannot understand the distinction the hon. member for Kempton Park is drawing here.

The one has a vested right and the other not.

Vested rights or no vested rights, every human being has the right to be tried. Here you are allowing a right of appeal. What is the use of the right of appeal if that man is to be removed with all his dependants, he can be sent anywhere in the country if it is so deemed, before his appeal is dismissed. Supposing the appeal is allowed by the Bantu Commissioner. Then he has to bring back all his goods and chattels, and his family. Will the hon. the Minister please tell me what the use of an appeal is in this regard. There is very little right of appeal under this Bill anyway. All the appeals are on the basis of technicalities, as far as I can see. There is no appeal to the normal courts of law in this Act, as it will be. Here the hon. Minister is graciously allowing a limited right of appeal. Surely he can at least allow these people to remain where they are until the appeal has been heard. If it is dismissed, then the law takes its course and very often very unjustly because of these tremendously wide definitions. But at least do not draw the distinction here between one human being and another where his appeal is being allowed in terms of the hon. Minister’s very Bill itself. How can one explain this in terms of equity? With the best will in the world will you explain to me how your ambassador in London is going to explain in equity how a man is removed before the appeal allowed in this Bill is even heard by the Bantu Commissioner?

I want to start with the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). I appreciate the tone of his speech. He referred to various aspects. Perhaps I did not follow the first few very well because I was busy with something else. He referred to the age limits of 60 and 65, etc. I think the hon. member will realize that the lowest age limit relates to the stage at which youngsters can start work and that the highest age limit relates to the stage at which people are entitled to old-age allowances and other allowances. There is a sound explanation for the grouping of the ages. The hon. member also referred to services that were rendered. He asked that the law should be administered with great circumspection. That is included in the assurance I gave the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) when I told him we would do our utmost to act in that way.

The hon. member also referred to work colonies and the rehabilitation schemes, etc.

I replied this afternoon to the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) in regard to the ehabilitation schemes. I must honestly say that I prefer a name like “rehabilitation scheme” to that of “work colonies”. This idea of rehabilitation schemes is something new. We are thinking of creating all sorts of possibilities for the Bantu by way of schemes in connection with irrigation, forestry, tree planting and stock farming, etc. We are thinking of all possible types of work, even work of a slightly more industrial character. We want to stablish places to which we can bring them in order to assist them to become human beings in the true sense of the word. I hope the hon. member will agree with me when I say that in the true sense of the word a person is obliged to earn his money through work if he wants to make a living. We all have to accept that. That was one of the first decrees issued to man after his creation and whether we like it or not we have to accept it. We must assist the Bantu to become a human being as we all have to be human beings. We want to assist them to be worthy of labour; we want to assist them to be worthy workers. And in that respect we shall allow ourselves to be guided by existing schemes. The hon. member referred to the other Act. We want to take into consideration the spirit and the tendency and objectives of schemes like those and emulate them and if possible improve upon them.

The hon. member also referred to the young people. A scheme is already in existence which provides for youth camps. If I remember correctly that scheme is under the control of the Children’s Act. There are certain youth camps up in the Transvaal; there are a few in the Cape Province and more will probably still be established. I have personally visited some of those youth camps. I may say we are not 100 per cent successful because we are dealing with a very difficult type of person but there are cases where we have attained considerable success at those youth camps. The intention is therefore to deal with the young people in such youth camps as well as at rehabilitation schemes. The existing schemes, namely the youth camps, are controlled under the Children’s Act to-day.

The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has made a suggestion in connection with appeals. He has given me very short notice; I have not had time to consider it thoroughly. I shall, in any case, think about it. It offers possibilities if there is anything in it. The hon. member is better equipped than myself to admit that that is a matter which is intertwined with a large number of provisions in this Bill and one will have to consider it carefully.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

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

The position here is rather a curious one. The local authorities have in the past been able to deal with the licensing of hawkers and pedlars in their own areas, but in terms of this clause the Minister may specify by notice in the Gazette whether or not a licence is required for the carrying on of any trade or business, and thereafter no Bantu can carry on any trade or business without having a trading certificate from the urban local authority. The position is that now the trader, the pedlar or hawker or dealer or speculator in livestock or produce or any street trade or business which the Minister may specify, has to have two consents, firstly that of the Minister and then that of the local authority. Quite frankly, we do not understand why there should be this interference with the right of the local authority. I do not know whether the Minister has been in consultation with the United Municipal Executive. If the Minister will explain it I will give him the opportunity, but I want to say that unless the Minister can show that there is some special and good reason why the powers of the municipalities should be so circumscribed, we will oppose this clause. We are averse to unnecessary interference, and we assume that generally a municipality consists of elected people who represent the views of the electorate in that area. That being so, when those people have such powers to control street-hawking, etc., we feel it should be left in their hands unless there is really a good reason for interfering with them.

I am pleased the hon. member has been so quick to ask me for the information because I want to enlighten hon. members thoroughly on the position of peddling and hawking. The hon. member said something at the beginning of his speech which is not quite correct. The position in regard to peddling varies from province to province but generally speaking no licence is required for this kind of street trade. No licence fees are paid: application is not made for a licence and no licence is issued. The person who wants to push a little cart and go to the market in Johannesburg or in Durban can do so. No licence is required for that. The municipalities, therefore, exercise no control in respect of these matters because they have no legal power of control. We have had a special interdepartmental investigation into this matter, with representatives from the municipalities, and the finding was that at the moment there were no legal means via the licensing system to control that. Anybody who wants to push a fruit cart, like they do here in Cape Town, simply undertakes to do so and he stands in the street where he wants to and sells. The only control there is is perhaps the control exercised in terms of traffic ordinances and then it is only when they obstruct the traffic. We came across cases in Johannesburg for example, and in Germiston and other big cities where they did not obstruct the traffic and consequently no action could be taken against those people. The result is that there is simply no control over this type of street trade. [Interjections.] As I have said it differs from province to province but there is no control in terms of licensing. That is why we have inserted this provision that just as the local authority deals with the trading aspect in connection with Bantu inside the urban Bantu residential areas in accordance with the procedure and policy laid down, the municipality must similarly deal with possible trading by Bantu in the streets. We then had to decide how to do it and we decided on this system. Here too the hon. member is not quite correct when he says the pedlars concerned have to have two approvals; he only requires one. Two approvals are at issue but the one is general approval. Under the Bill therefore the position will be that if somebody wants to enter this sort of street trade that person will have to obtain a licence from the municipality saying that he can do so, or rather a permit because he will not have to pay for it. But before the City Council issues him with that certificate or permit the City Council must first approach the Minister and say: The law fortbids this but we think there are good reasons to have peddling in the whole city of Cape Town, or just in Salt River—in limited areas. If a case can be made out for it the Minister will say: Very well, I shall now notify the city council or city councils in the section of the city concerned, or in the whole area of the city, that they may issue certificates to people who ask for them. The city council will then have the right to issue certificates in respect of that limited area of the city or in respect of the whole city and in those areas where the Minister does not want to give his approval it cannot be done. In other words the pedlar concerned does not have to have two approvals; he only has to have the approval of the city council, provided the city council has obtained the approval of the Minister beforehand. It must be clearly understood that this is only a question of street trade in the prescribed areas, in the urban areas, outside the urban Bantu residential areas—outside the locations; there are arrangements for this trade inside the locations. But that is not under discussion at the moment. I think I have now explained the position quite clearly.

I do not cite follow the Minister’s explanation. In so far as Natal is concerned, the question of hawking and peddling is controlled by a provincial ordinance, not only in the urban areas but also in the rural areas, and nobody may peddle or hawk unless he has a licence. In the urban areas it is controlled by the municipality, and in the rural areas it is controlled by a rural licensing Board. In no case is either the hawking or the peddling uncontrolled. It is controlled in each case by persons with knowledge of that district. Now in terms of this clause an urban local authority may grant permission under this section in certain circumstances, but it may not do so unless the Minister has authorized the urban local authority to issue such a certificate. What I do not understand is why, when this matter which is peculiarly within the knowledge of the local authority or the rural licensing board, who know what is required and what is not and what constitutes a traffic hazard and what does not, it is necessary for permission to be obtained from the Minister as to what licences can be granted? Why is it not sufficient for the local authorities or the rural licensing boards to know what is best for their own districts? That is the difficulty we have with this clause. It seems to me quite unnecessary that in a comparatively minor matter such as this the control over the whole country should be vested in the Minister, or in somebody in Pretoria. Surely when it comes to a comparatively minor matter such as hawking and peddling, the odd small cart selling fruit, that can be left to those concerned with the area, who know what is required in the district, and it is something which the central authority in Pretoria can have no knowledge of at all.

This clause creates legal power to control peddling and hawking by Bantu in prescribed areas and it will therefore be welcomed by anybody who is in any way acquainted with the increasing irregularities that exist because of lack of control. It is in that spirit that I support this clause heartily. I also support it because the objections that were made by certain local authorities to the clause introduced in this House last year have in the meantime been removed. This clause differs, however, in a few respects from the corresponding one in last year’s Bill which was subsequently withdrawn. I refer to Clause 89 (4) (e) of Bill No. 72 of 1963. This clause does not provide for the vehicle or apparatus or article with which the trade is apparently being conducted illegally to be confiscated until such time as the Court has given its final judgment on the matter nor does it provide for perishable goods to be disposed of. I regard that as a very serious defect in this clause and I therefore want to suggest to the Minister that he should consider reintroducing into this clause the power to confiscate and to dispose of perishable products. I for my part do not think there can be any justifiable objection to my suggestion and I should like to hear from the Minister whether in the course of the investigation he conducted last year he found any reason why this clause should not be re-drafted. But what is more, I regard this right to confiscate as essential in order to deal with quite a few practical problems that exist. I want to show why it is essential and I want to refer in particular to the problem which urban local authorities have with the so-called coffee carts that are parked all along the pavement wherever there is a concentration of Bantu labourers in that urban area. It is generally known what a threat these coffee carts and the doubtful practices of their owners are to the health of the Bantu who use them as well as to the Whites who live or work nearby. It is so serious that the urban local authorities who have this problem are unanimous in their decision that these dirty and filthy little stalls should be removed from the streets. In the absence of legal powers some of these urban local authorities—the Minister has referred to Germiston and Johannesburg—decided to take action in terms of local building and traffic ordinances. I may mention that the Johannesburg City Council who of all city councils in the Republic is perhaps most troubled by this problem has up to 30 June 1961 removed no fewer than 938 of these so-called coffee carts under their building Ordinance. Then it became doubtful, as a result of an appeal judgment against the City Council of Germiston, whether these coffee carts were a structure and whether action could be taken against them under that Ordinance and the attempt to clear them off the streets was then stopped. What was the result? Up to 4 December 1962 the number had increased by 426 and to-day there are approximately 2,000 of these filthy street stalls in the municipal area of Johannesburg and they are a threat to the health of everybody who has anything to do with them.

I return to the point I really wanted to make, namely, the power to confiscate which is essential in order to cope with this problem. These 938 coffee carts that were removed by the City Council of Johannesburg had all to be dismantled because only two of the 938 owners of those coffee carts reacted to the advertisement placed in the newspapers by the City Council. In other words, the owners were not even interested in their own property; they left it there as a burden on the local authority. AH those coffee carts had to be dismantled and the sink and the wood, which were for the most part pieces of scrap, had to be sold. Hon. members will now understand why I say this power to confiscate and to dispose of the goods in question, is absolutely essential if you wish to cope adequately with this problem. I trust the Minister will give his serious consideration to this. When we think of it that in the past the city councils, perhaps illegally, resorted to confiscating and dismantling these coffee carts, I do not think there can be any justifiable grounds for representations on their part that this provision should not be re-inserted in the clause.

I was very surprised indeed to hear a member on the Government side attacking this Bill. As far as I know, this is the first clause about which any member of the Government party has disagreed—and then, of course, it transpires that this is a very clever tactic. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) says: I do not like this clause—I would prefer the clause which was in the Bill that was withdrawn last year. And the reason is that the 1963 draft of this Bill prohibited all Bantu traders in a prescribed area from trading without the permission of the Minister. Sir, in case the hon. member for Westdene thinks that we do not know what was stated in last year’s Bill, I want to assure him that we know it very well … [Interjections.] He asks the Minister to change this clause because he wants something more stringent. Although it is very refreshing to have any sort of criticism of this Bill from the Government side, I want to tell the hon. member that his grounds for welcoming back the 1963 version of this clause are not really good enough. He referred to the coffee carts, which I will be the first to concede, from my own personal and practical experience, have for some years constituted a problem within the Municipality of Johannesburg. [Interjections.] I want to tell you, Sir, that the hon. member for Westdene, up to a point, gave a very accurate version of the problem, but then, for political reasons, he was inclined to change the tone of it. He said in effect that the coffee carts were a problem in Johannesburg, and that is quite right. But when he says that this is the way to deal with it, we disagree fundamentally.

Why did you allow it then?

The hon. member for Westdene will be the first to admit that we had endless trouble in succeeding in any prosecution against the coffee-cart operator or vendor, but that was a legal defect which was beyond our control, because under the traffic by-laws we could charge a man, but half the time we found that we could not sustain a case against him. Then he also overlooks completely the fact that although these particular coffee carts are not de luxe restaurants, they are the only amenity offered in those industrial areas in or near the centre of Johannesburg for the small industries that employ a limited number of Bantu who, when they get their lunch-break or their coffee-break in the morning or afternoon, have nowhere to go to buy any refreshment whatsoever. That is the reason why these coffee carts are there, and that is why, as soon as prosecutions were stopped because of the legal difficulty, their number increased again and I am prepared to accept his figures. But these people perform a service which no one else will perform. The Bantu who gets ten minutes off at 10 a.m. and wants to buy a cup of coffee for his 2c and a bun for another 2c cannot go into the central area, for all sorts of reasons, such as the lack of time and the lack of transport, and because he cannot sit in a restaurant, etc. Apparently the hon. member could not care less if these Bantu—and there are thousands of them—do without any food whatever, as long as he can do away with the coffee carts.

The hon. member referred to the Johannesburg City Council. I want to tell him that our experience was that the continuation of this system of coffee carts, as unhygienic as they may be, was a lesser evil than the complete elimination of those carts. In other words, the Bantu who relied on the coffee cart operator to give him 5c worth of refreshment three times a day was better off getting it under conditions which are far from hygienic, than not getting it at all.

If the hon. member’s statement is correct, why did he, as a member of the Johannesburg City Council, commit 938 of these coffee carts not only to be withdrawn from the street but to be demolished if they render such an essential service?

It is a very simple question and I will give a very simple answer. We knew that there were several thousands of these carts, and what we tried to do, as the hon. member knows, was to eliminate the most unhygienic and the worst of these carts. But the hon. member for Westdene and I are friends, as far as I am concerned, so let us leave the matter there.

Now I want to deal with the position of the Minister. The key to the situation is found in the statement by the hon. the Deputy Minister when he said that “the position varies from province to province”. Sir, who dares to come between me and the Deputy Minister? That merely means that since the local authority is a creature of statute, and more particularly a creature of ordinance by the Provincial Councils, it is specifically the function of the local authority under the jurisdiction of the provincial council concerned, to license or to refuse to license any type of trading. That is surely the obvious reason why we say that this is a further intrusion into the rights and powers of the local authority. The Minister may well shake his head in despair, but after he and his Minister and some of his colleagues have finished, I promise you that the only thing they will allow a local authority to do is to collect the rates from its unwilling ratepayers otherwise they will be able to do nothing without Ministerial permission.

Another interesting position is this. The Deputy Minister provides us with a memorandum in which the new provisions of this clause are described, and he says in it that the local authority may only give such permission if it is authorized by the Minister to grant such permission in respect of a prescribed area. There you have it again. [Interjections.]

Order!

There we have the same position again—that the Minister is the puppeteer and the local authority is merely the puppet. The Minister pulls the strings, and the local authority dances. [Interjection.] The Minister says I did not dance when I was there. I certainly did not dance to his tune. I am very happy that I got out before I could be forced to do so. The Minister may direct that no such trading may be permitted in certain portions of the prescribed area, and if that is not enough, he says the granting of a licence to carry on any such trade is also subject to the prior consent of the local authority concerned. Can you believe it, Sir? After he has finished with the rights of local authority, he says they also have a voice in the matter! I want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that since the position at the present time is that a local authority requires no “authority”, from the Minister or from anybody else, either to license or to refuse to license a dealer in any commodity, that position should, in the interests of local government, continue. If this question of hawking in fact a matter which has to be dealt with by legislation, then the local authority should be put in a position where it will be permitted, under the law, to take steps against a hawker who trades in some way and who in the course thereof contravenes a by-law of the local authority, whether a by-law relating to health or any other aspect. That is how the matter should be dealt with. That is the solution, and not for the Minister to take all the powers he seeks to take here. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, as far as the hon. member for Hospital, who has just sat down, is concerned the position is, of course, that if I were really to say what I wanted to say I would be asked to withdraw it! The hon. member served on the City Council of Johannesburg the same time I served on it but he simply closed his eyes to the position which obtained in this connection. To-day they tell us, however, that they cannot do anything about it. Now that the hon. the Minister is taking the power to handle the situation they oppose it! I want to ask the hon. member for Hospital whether it is not a fact that the position was so bad there that the Department of Health had to be called in? That Department then caused some of the people to be removed. When the small group of Nationalists got up in the City Council, and asked for something to be done, that hon. member, the hon. member for Florida and others called out: “Oh, the poor Natives! leave them there; they are making a living there. But when you go into the position you find that the Bantu’s wife serves at the coffee cart while his lordship sits under a tree nearby with a number of other Natives around him. And what do they? They are agitating! That is what they are doing there.

There are a few hundred of these carts in my constituency. You simply cannot use the pavements. The carts cannot be parked in the streets because if they were they would block the traffic. The result is that they are parked on the pavements. You have to see what is going on there, Sir, before you can fully appreciate the position. After they have used it the dirty water is simply thrown out there. It is nearly 12 years that I have been out of the City Council of Johannesburg but we already discussed this matter at that time. To-day they are still discussing it. It is true that a number of these coffee carts were removed under the Traffic Ordinance, but as we heard a moment ago, most of them are back again. I do not deny that if these carts were controlled and a standard laid down and applied, these people would be rendering a useful service by selling food to the non-Whites in the factories. But in that case we must at least see to it that they operate under hygienic conditions and that they do not clutter up the pavements.

Here I have a letter which appeared in the Press on 1 November 1963 under the heading “Food stalls dominate City Pavements”. It reads—

That is the position and it cannot be denied. That is why we welcome the fact that the Minister and his Department are now seeking these powers because if we were to leave it in the hands of the City Council … ! The hon. member for South Coast objected strenuously to this matter being taken out of the hands of the municipalities. We do not know what the position is in Durban but I invite the hon. member to come and see what is happening in Johannesburg. He will then turn round and admit that the crowd on the Johannesburg City Council are the most useless crowd of people on this earth and I include those we have had there. Let us look into the past and see what the Government had to do because the miserable City Council of Johannesburg refused to do anything. If the Government does not take action now we shall have those coffee carts there till the end of time.

I ask the Minister to delegate the powers he asks for here to the City Council of Johannesburg, only in certain conditions, inter alia, on condition that they take immediate action to remove the coffee carts. The hon. member for Hospital maintained that nothing could be done, but the hon. member has never ascertained what the conditions were. He and his colleagues stayed away. They did not want to see it. The position was too bad and they were afraid that if they did know how bad it was they would have to do some thing about it. My talking did not help in the least. However, Mr. Chairman, you know a United Party member better than I do—he is the sort of thing you have to kill if you want him out of the way. I want to conclude by congratulating the Minister on what he has in mind. At the same time I wish to ask him to take firm action in future, more particularly against the City Council of Johannesburg.

There is something else I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. It is something which has manifested itself during the past few months and it is this that the Bantu are beginning to sell all sorts of vegetables on the pavements in the suburbs of Johannesburg—potatoes, oranges, and all sorts of vegetables. The position is already such that you cannot use the pavement. And what about the conditions which are created? Go and see what happens in the evening when he packs up and you will see what conditions prevail and that very often happens right on the doorstep of the traders. [Time limit.]

Now that the hon. member for Langlaagte has been able to do his show for the public, I think we should get down to a much more serious contemplation of this clause, and I think bon. members opposite should wipe the laughter off their faces because this is a very serious matter. The hon. the Deputy Minister is correct in that this is one of the means to try to stop the continued growth of this coffee cart system in Johannesburg. This is an amendment to the Natives (Urban Areas) Act and that is one of the objectives of this particular clause. But the hon. the Deputy Minister and his Department have known for years what difficulties are facing the local authorities in the Transvaal. Local authorities there have done everything in their power to avoid the continued growth of this type of coffee cart. Cases were taken to court but prosecutions were overruled. Consequently, some power is necessary. But the serious situation which exists is that you have some 300,000 men and women workers who pass through the city and its suburbs for whom there is no provision at all in respect of refreshments during the day. No trading is permitted by the Department within the city. All trading which was carried on by the Bantu had to be closed and they had to shift their trade undertakings to the townships. The hon. the Deputy Minister is aware of this fact. That happened a few years ago when the hon. member for Langlaagte no longer was a member of the City Council.

What we should like to have from the hon. the Deputy Minister is some assurance that he is going to use the powers being asked for here wisely and well in the interests of the people of whom he is the protector and the so-called great White Father. If the hon. member for Westdene and others have as objective to put up a ludicrous show about this unfortunate system of coffee carts, then I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister has very much more sobriety than that and that consequently he will tell us what his real objective is with this clause. The powers asked for in this clause can be used wisely. Normally this type of power should belong to provincial councils. Licensing normally comes under them and municipalities. However, here is a very serious defect in our social system and despite the fact that this Bill is going to make of the Bantu merely a labour unit, the fact remains that he will still be there—over 300,000 of them. Where can they get coffee in the early morning? He leaves home at 5 or 5.30 in the morning to come to the city to work. He arrives before he has had a chance for a meal. So these coffee carts have been of help to them. Perhaps it is not a good system. The best would be that the Bantu should go to a restaurant, such as the one on the station. The Railways have provided a restaurant and dining room there but this does not open as early as it should. Some provision should be made, particularly in the industrial areas, for these amenities and it is the function of the Department to co-operate with the local authority in this respect. For years we have known about this growing sore—the Department has known about it and the Minister has known about it. Nothing, however, has been done. There is no point in the hon. the Deputy Minister taking powers to control. He should control wisely. He should tell us what he intends doing to replace this unfortunate system which has grown up and about which the hon. member for Westdene complained so loudly. I am very disappointed with the hon. member for Langlaagte. He at one time was the leader of the Nationalist Party in the City Council and was, as such, a responsible city councillor. He knows of the difficulties and, consequently, he has no right to come here and make a laughing matter of a serious defect in our social system. The hon. the Deputy Minister is here taking certain powers but it is no use sitting back smugly feeling that he has almighty powers. He has a responsibility too and that to the very people for whom his own Minister provides, or so he boasts, at least, that great blanket of protection. Let him then tell us how he is going to meet the complaints which have been made and how he is going to use his powers in the interests of the Bantu people.

Well, Sir, I would not have believed that these coffee carts could engender such great heat on the part of the hon. member for Florida! It seems to me there is “sjeef in die koffie” (poison in the coffee), as the hon. member for Middelland remarks. But let us now consider the actual position in a calmer spirit.

The hon. member for Zululand raised the position of Natal here. I want to point out to him that if this provision is passed then, where it is justified—in Natal or in any other province—all these types of hawking will still exist. This does not affect only the coffee carts, although everybody evidently wants to talk just about them. In any case, it will make something possible in Natal which is not possible there at the moment and for which there is a need. The position now is that the licensing authority cannot simply decide that, e.g. coffee carts will be allowed just in a portion of the city. The result is that every city or town in Natal is literally swamped by this type of hawking. If the need for such coffee carts exists in a limited area of the city or town, and if there is power to prevent this evil spreading over the whole city or town, then matters can be controlled. And here Natal will benefit from this clause. Now hon. members, however, ask why these things should be left in the hands of the Minister. They want the local authorities alone to decide on these matters. I have touched on this point in one of my previous speeches, but I shall now deal with it at greater length.

What is the position to-day in regard to ordinary trade by the Bantu in the area of jurisdiction of local authorities, in other words n the urban Bantu residential area? There the city councils are also subject to the control of the Minister! Therefore we are only following an existing pattern here. Do hon. members not realize that? The present pattern is that the trading activities which can be undertaken by a Bantu in an urban Bantu residential area cannot exclusively be controlled by the local authorities. In this regard hon. members should just refer to Section 37 of the Urban Areas Act to see how the Minister may impose conditions, and how he can even control the regulations framed by local authorities in connection with these matters. In actual fact the Minister has the ultimate control over regulations affecting trade by Bantu in the area of jurisdiction of municipalities. Therefore that is so already. What we are doing here now is simply to apply the same pattern to trading by Bantu outside the urban Bantu residential areas, i.e. in the streets. Therefore we say nothing about it except in regard to those areas which the Minister will approve of beforehand.

The hon. members for Westdene and Langlaagte raised an important matter. I want to tell those hon. members who ridiculed the hon. member for Langlaagte that they have done him an injustice. Personally I am well acquainted with the constituency of that hon. member and I can say that that constituency has suffered much as the result of that evil. He has therefore rendered everybody a service by stating his case here. It was not necessary to ridicule him.

We did not ridicule him.

He and the hon. member for Westdene have raised an important point, as I have already stated. I must be frank and say that this is a point we did in fact consider, to see whether we should not make provision for it. After deliberations, however, we decided not to do so just for the time being, so we; will wait and see how things develop. We are now introducing these control measures, granting recognition to the local authorities as the local agents of the Central Government, and we hope that it will lead to a great improvement. If not, we shall always be able to come back to this House, and then we shall have good reason for doing so.

Hon. members opposite have said that these coffee carts render an essential service. I want to tell them that they really should not pretend that every Bantu who is on his way to work need stand eating in the street, with a piece of bread in the one hand and a tin of coffee in the other. This is an unhygienic and unaesthetic way of providing food. In all the industrial areas there is provision for what are called Bantu eating-houses. They can be found everywhere in the densely built-up areas where there are large numbers of Bantu workers. Provision has been made for eating-houses in the White areas.

But not under the control of Bantu.

That is just the point. Hon. members know that permits for these eating-houses are issued in terms of the Group Areas Act and that, in line with the policy, they are granted outside the urban Bantu residential areas to non-Bantu, i.e., to Whites, Chinese, Indians, Coloureds, etc. Surely it is quite clear why that has to be done. The Bantu comes to our cities to work. We have told the Bantu that we will give them a monopoly in their locations and residential areas in so far as trading there is concerned. That means that the White man, the Indian, the Coloured and other races are prohibited from trading inside urban Bantu residential areas. But in those areas where the Whites, the Indians, the Coloureds and others, i.e. everybody except the Bantu, work and live, the right to run eating-houses belongs to those racial groups. But if these eating-houses provide inadequate facilities, the Act gives city councils the power also to allow this type of hawking under certain limited circumstances, but then it must be done under properly controlled circumstances.

Explain that to us.

Surely it is contained in the Act. I remarked the other day that this hon. member was a clever member, and he can read too. Let him go and read it. I think I have now said everything I wanted to say in regard to this matter.

It was, of course, inevitable that the hon. the Deputy Minister would thank the hon. member for Langlaagte for his contribution to this debate. That was inevitable because, Obviously, the hon. member meant well and made a friendly speech designed to help the Minister. But I watched the face of the hon. the Deputy Minister while the hon. member for Langlaagte was speaking, and it seemed to me that he was saying to himself: “With friends like that, who needs enemies?” As a matter of fact, the hon. member made out a better case in support of or Objections to this clause than we ourselves have made out so far. Let us give him his due. He was good enough to refer to our former association in the Johannesburg City Council, and it is extraordinary how often the Johannesburg City Council is dragged into this Chamber. But let me admit that we had this problem of the coffee carts when both he and I were members of that city council, and when that hon. member left that council, I sent up a silent prayer that I would never have to argue with him again about coffee carts—but here we are, back in the argument! And what is more, the position has not changed. Up to this day the Johannesburg City Council has not been able to find any alternative means to allow Bantu within the city limits to Obtain the food they need during the day.

Now, Sir, let me put this to you. If the hon. the Deputy Minister was correct in what he said and if that applied to all these industrial areas, the position would be very different.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Certainly.

How long will it still be before you are tired listening to yourself?

That hon. member’s sense of humour is not in proportion to his size. At any rate, if there were any alternative way of providing those Bantu working in industries in and near the central area of a large town with the food they need, the hon. member for Langlaagte should be the first to say that the Johannesburg City Council would be the first local authority to bring it into operation. I made the point in my first speech on this clause that it would be those Bantu of lesser numbers working in minor industries who would suffer if we did away with these coffee carts.

Why do you not start an eating-house for them?

As soon as that hon. Minister admits me into some of the enterprises into which he is apparently admitted for certain reasons, I am prepared to admit him into my eating-house—when I start it. But as I was saying, nobody in this House, no matter what his views are, has up to now come forward with one single alternative for the provision of the food and refreshment which at present is being provided by the coffee carts. From the hon. member for Langlaagte we heard that these coffee carts could not be parked in the streets, because the traffic officers, in terms of the traffic by-laws, will not allow it. Therefore they park on the pavements—and here he exclaimed with indignation that when he and his friends wanted to go to a rugby match, they were obstructed by these coffee carts. Now let me, as an ordinary motorist, tell this House that when I want to drive down Parliament Street, I find there a clutter of Cadillacs which is a great obstruction as well. And who is going to legislate against them? Of course we know that there are objections, some serious and some completely whimsical, against the coffee carts and against the Bantu vendors on the grounds of traffic requirements and the standards of health and hygiene. But up till now it has not been possible to provide an economic alternative to these coffee carts. If I read this clause correctly, it seems to me that the hon. the Minister is leaving a door open for these services to be provided by an Indian, a Coloured person and others without any restriction whatever. I say this because the clause only states that no Bantu shall be allowed to do it without permission. In other words, the hon. the Deputy Minister contrary to his own philosophy that the Bantu should serve only the Bantu, is placing the Bantu here at a disadvantage, because he has to face up to potential competition from and may have to make way for the Indian and Coloured hawker.

If the provisions of this clause are going to be carried out to the letter—and the hon. the Deputy Minister apparently has the intention of doing that—it will be no laughing matter for the people concerned. If the hon. member for Langlaagte wants to be honest, he should stand up and tell this House that in those areas at present being served by the coffee carts in Johannesburg, there is no other facility available to the Bantu. There is the question of eating-houses the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to. I referred to it earlier when I said that I was aware of the fact that in certain areas of Johannesburg there were these places, known as “Hotel a Bantu”. But these are vanishing, for all sorts of reasons, one of these being that as they were operated by non-Bantu, it was not in line with Government policy. I can prove that the number of these eating-houses is dwindling, and no new ones are being opened up. Let the hon. the Deputy Minister stand up and tell me where any eating-house has has been opened up within the central area of Johannesburg within the last two years.

In conclusion, as far as this matter is concerned, I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, realizing as he must that here is a difficult matter about which local authorities have great problems, to leave this entire matter where it is, i.e., in the hands of the local authorities. They understand the position, as of necessity they must …

And if they have as bad a mayor as you were?

Order! The hon. member should not be so personal.

That hen. member could not even become the mayor of Karasburg, let alone Johannesburg!

It is quite clear that the hon. member for Langlaagte has put his finger on the sore of Johannesburg. That is quite clear from the reaction of the hon. members for Hospital and Florida. They made a bitter attack on the hon. member for Langlaagte, but I just want to tell the hon. member for Hospital this: When the hon. member for Langlaagte gets up in this House—it is true that he cannot just be a babbler—and says something, then he is genuine. He is at least genuine and honest and he at least loves the city in which he lives.

I want to put this question to the hon. member for Zululand and South Coast, who want the status quo in Natal to be maintained. Are they satisfied with the way in which licences are issued in Natal to hawkers and vendors?

Yes, absolutely.

Sir, that is all I wanted to know from those two hon. members.

Clause 66 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 67,

This clause refers to the regulations which the State President may make as to all or any of a number of matters. They are set out mainly on page 95. Whereas it seems reasonable that the State President, by which one understands the Minister, will make regulations, for example, about the medical examination and supervision of the vaccination of Bantu, that the State President, by which one again understands the Minister, will make regulations concerning the powers and duties of the police, it is extremely difficult to understand why, in terms of paragraph (i), the State President must make “regulations concerning the prohibition, restriction or regulation of advertising in a Bantu residential area by way of boards, bill posters, projections, neon lights or in any other form, whether on or in any public place or on or in any premises in any such area”. I really think that this is going too far. What power of regulating anything that happens in connection with the Bantu in an urban area, does the Minister believe should be left to a local authority? He can cut down my speech by eight minutes if he will give me an answer and say: “I shall leave them the powers A, B and C.” Then one will know. But when a Government goes out of its way to take this power unto itself, and furthermore, in my humble opinion, to involve even by title or constitutionally the State President in respect of the prohibition, restriction or regulation of neon signs, then I honestly think it has become too ludicrous for anything but the most severe criticism. What is the purpose of this? What is the purpose of the Government, being the Minister and the State President, wanting this power to say that a neon sign may only be erected if it is no more than three feet wide, four feet high and the colours are restricted to yellow, blue and purple? That is the sort of thing the local authority does. That is what the building survey department does. That is what the electrical engineeers of a local authority do when application has been made for a neon sign. They inspect the site to determine whether, in terms of the licensing regulations, the design is correct. Then they say: “Yes, the licence will cost so much a year.” What has the Minister got to do with this?

What is even misleading about this position —unless I have misread the paragraph in the White Paper—is the way it is referred to in the White Paper. Paragraph 75, “Regulations” states—

Now, Sir, if you read that quickly, you may well gain the impression that on the one hand in regard to some matters the State President will make the regulations, but on the other hand and in regard to other matters, the local authority will make the regulations. This is the impression given by that “and”. You get the impression that it is a right which is shared between the State President, being the Government, and the local authorities. But that is not so. Here it says very clearly “that in regard to the prohibition, restriction or regulation of advertising …” only the State President shall make regulations. I put it with great respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister that whatever he thinks about the weaknesses inherent in our local authority system, if he has any respect left for a local authority—and let us assume that he does not like Johannesburg because the hon. member for Langlaagte has induced all sorts of suspicions in his mind; he said we had the worst council in the world generally speaking …

That is not relevant.

Let us assume that he has a suspicion about a local authority, there are nevertheless other local authorities, presumably like that of my friend, the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto), which are functioning very well and which meet fully and completely with the approval of the Minister. If the Minister wants to take away the powers of the Pretoria City Council to determine where and how an advertising sign or a neon sign can or cannot be erected he will be reducing that Pretoria City Council— that “beau ideal” of city councils, in the Government’s mind—to the same ludicrous position as he is reducing the Johannesburg City Council, which obviously is not efficient (according to the Minister). I do not make a plea, as some people seem to think, only for the Johannesburg City Council, of which there are several “old boys here”, I am making a plea for the local authorities. I am making a plea for the system of local government. We told the Government last year that they seem to have embarked, by way of regulations and laws governing the Bantu, on a course which can only result in the Government alone regulating the affairs within a local authority, and regulating the affairs of the White people within that local authority as well as the Bantu. Let me put it to you this way, Mr. Chairman. Usually the advertiser is a company controlled by Europeans. That company has other interests within the local authority area, such as the ownership of property; it pays assessment rates; it trades there. In the course of ordinary business of that company, the managing director or other responsible person would address himself to the city council, so that when he comes to the point where he wants to advertise, say, Lifebuoy soap, in a Bantu township by medium of a neon sign, he will go to the local authority, in the usual way, with an application, and the matter will be dealt with according to the ability of the local authority, and according to its own experience. What is the Minister trying to take away from the local authority when he says in future only the State President will regulate this? He may restrict, he may prohibit, he may regulate. Therefore, Sir, I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us a good reason why it is necessary to take this power under paragraph (i)—I am not discussing the other powers; they seem to be more reasonable, at any rate—unto himself, and to take it away from the local authority? I would be very interested to hear his reply.

I do not at all share the hon. member’s great anxiety in regard to the fact that we have reduced to two the three bodies which could make regulations in the past. In the past the local authorities, the Minister and the State President could make regulations. Those of the local authorities were in any case subject to the approval of the Minister. We have now reduced it to two, viz. the local authorities and the State President, with those of the local authorities subject to the approval of the Minister, as in the past. In the past that worked very well, and I do not know why the hon. member is so concerned about it. I think the hon. member is seeing unnecessary bogies in regard to the question of the division of the regulation-making powers between these two bodies.

The hon. member had much to say about the neon lights. Paragraph (i) reads—

There is a very important reason for it. We have already given guidance in the past administratively to municipalities all over the country by means of circulars and advice as to how to set to work in regard to advertisements inside Bantu urban residential areas. We have already done it in the same way as could be done by way of regulation, but just without the proper statutory authorization. We gave them this advice administratively. The advice we gave the municipalities in the past will now also be given but with proper statutory sanction. The hon. member should be grateful that things are not simply done without proper authorization. I do not think we will get any objections from municipalities in this regard.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 72,

I am not objecting to this clause. Indeed this seems to be the only saving grace in this Bill, that is if I read this clause correctly. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell me that I do. The way I read this clause it means that in future people who are arrested for the non-production of documents will not have a penalty imposed on them unless they have failed to produce such documents without reasonable cause, etc. I hope that this means what the White Paper says it means because we have had a bit of conflict over the White Paper before now. The White Paper makes it clear, it seems to me, that once this clause is passed, in future if anybody fails to produce a document without reasonable cause, only then is he liable to conviction.

The White Paper is right.

Good. The White Paper makes that clear and my interpretation is in terms of the White Paper. I welcome this very much indeeed, Mr. Chairman. If anything can be done at all to reduce the astronomical numbers of convictions under the pass laws and influx control regulations it should obviously be done. As the hon. Minister knows the figures over the past years have been almost frightening in their size. Last year’s figure was higher than any previous year. The figures I have obtained by way of questions reveal that in 1951, 232,420 Africans were convicted under the pass laws and influx control regulations. And this increased steadily until 1960 when 340,958 persons were so convicted. Last year, if I remember correctly, the figure was something in the neighbourhood of 382,000. I know that all these people are obviously not convicted in terms only of the non-production of documents but for all sorts of infringements under the pass laws and influx control regulations. But there is no doubt that a number of people are in fact so convicted simply because they have failed to produce their documents on demand.

I am very pleased to see that this is being introduced and I hope it will also reduce the number of people so convicted. But what is worrying me is the broad interpretation in law which can be placed on this phrase “without reasonable cause”. I know in previous years there has been a Departmental instruction given, for instance, to the police not to arrest people if such people are asked to produce their documents and cannot do so because they had left them at home or because they had left them in their jacket pockets hanging behind the door of somebody else’s house and so on. But that instruction has never ever been carried out. The police have not used their discretion in this regard. I am worried about this particular phrase “without reasonable cause”. What sort of detailed instructions are going to be given to the police and to all the other officials who, in terms of the Urban Areas Act and other laws, are able to stop people and demand their documents? What sort of instructions are going to be given to these people specifically about non-arrest for failure to produce without reasonable cause? It is a very important issue and I hope the hon. the Minister is going to be able to give us some specific answer to this and not simply that it will be left to the discretion of the policemen or the municipal policemen or the railway policemen or any of the other officials who can stop a person once, twice or a dozen times on his way home from work and demand his document which he is unable to produce on demand. Then the man gets dagged off to the police station and all the attendant convictions and so forth take place.

I hope we will get some assurance from the hon. the Minister.

Do you set store by assurances?

Well, I hope to get it on paper anyway.

As the hon. member knows the Minister and his Department cannot issue instructions to the police. Those instructions will have to come from the Department concerned. That has been done in the past. The hon. member mentioned instructions that were given in the past. With regard to this matter hon. members can rest assured that the matter will be proceeded with in the same tradition and on the same basis as in the past. Now I want to add this for the information of the hon. member—I think she knows it—that we have introduced in this Bill another institution, namely the aid centre. Those aid centres can be of great assistance to eliminate that sort of contravention to which the hon. member has just referred.

I am not quite satisfied with the last point made by the Minister. As far as I am concerned the aid centres do not help the matter at all, because from there they are sent off to work anywhere that the aid centre manager wishes to send them. I want to say again that in the past the giving of instructions to the police did not work. The hon. Minister says it is going to be carried on in the same spirit as in the past.

If necessary new instructions can be issued.

I can assure the Minister it is necessary. I hope he will get in touch with his colleague, the hon. Minister of Justice, in this regard.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 73,

This is a clause to the principles of which we have no objection.

In fact, we think its provisions are necessary. Then there is a sub-section the principle of which we agree with. That is 43sept, on page 101. That section provides for special provision in regard to persons acting as consultants to Bantu. I do not think there is any doubt at all that a very good case can be made out for dealing with these people who take money from the Bantu under the pretence of helping them to get documents or under the pretence that they can help them with the various pass laws and labour regulations. As the section is worded at the moment there are a number of institutions which might fall foul of the law. I am quite sure the hon. the Minister is not intending by this section to get such people. For example, a body of ladies who operate in the Republic …

The Black Sash?

The hon. member mentions the Black Sash. That is an institution such as the ones I was thinking of, but there are other bodies as well. Let us take this body of ladies. They have premises on which they employ someone full-time to assist Bantu who are in difficulties, Bantu who do not know where to go or what to do. The Bantu are told how to go about doing what they should do. This body receives money from donors, not from the Bantu whom they help but from people outside. The money is received by the Black Sash or by any other organization which does this sort of work in respect of the work it does for the Bantu. It does not receive money from the Bantu; it is not the person the Minister has in mind here. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister is not wanting to get at that sort of organization which performs a public service to these people without taking any money from them. When I say a “public service” I really mean it. Because we have spent some time here discussing this Bill and the hon. the Deputy Minister will appreciate the difficulty we had to understand how these laws are all interlocked with one another and what in fact the present law is relating to these people.

And some of us sometimes make mistakes.

Yes, indeed, Sir, some of us sometimes make mistakes. It is true, Sir, that some of us do not make as many mistakes as others and it is true that one is human when one makes those mistakes. The hon. Minister emphasizes my point. But the Bantu are in a hopeless position when it comes to understanding what all these laws are. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether in fact he has bodies like those in mind. I am sure he has not. If the hon. Minister does not have them in mind then I want to say to him that this clause, as it is worded at the moment, would bring such a body within its ambit. I know the prosecutions will be done administratively and I hope the Minister will give us his assurance, if he is unable to amend this clause so as to exclude these bodies, that he will not prosecute organizations such as those I have mentioned.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) referred to the body known as the Black Sash. I did not think it would be necessary to mention that body here. I want to tell the hon. member that I differ from him fundamentally when he says that this body does work for the Bantu which is of public interest or, as he said, that they are rendering a public service. I deny that. Perhaps I am not aware of all their activities; I have a strong suspicion that they will make sure that I do not know of all their activities. But as far as I have knowledge of their activities, I am not prepared to accept that they render such a public service. I think much of the misapprehension and misrepresentation is particularly due to the interference of those ladies who could usefully occupy themselves with other activities in the public interest. Therefore I am not as enthusiastic about it as the hon. member is.

I now come to the question of the money received by that body. If that body of course receives money from a Bantu, then it is a matter of interpretation in terms of the Act. I leave it there. I hope the Act will be strictly interpreted by those who have to interpret it. If they receive money from donors—that is something which falls outside the scope of our Department and therefore I do not have all the available facts—then they must register, as far as my knowledge of these matters goes. They must register under the welfare council of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. No one can just receive money from the public as he likes; he must be registered and must set to work according to the procedure laid down. That body will have to decide on that point. But if our Department has any say in regard to the registration of that body with the Welfare Council, I should certainly like to see it opposed. I am not so sure that they use the money wisely.

In connection with the clause I have an amendment on the Order Paper which I now want to move—

I think this amendment is really in keeping with what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said as far as the receipt of money from any Bantu is concerned. In fact, the amendment which I have drafted, specifically excludes the receipt of money or payment or reward from any Bantu so as to make it absolutely certain that the intention of this clause is to stop people from taking money, fraudulently or otherwise, for services rendered to Africans in terms of helping them to get employment or to obtain passes or to stay in the urban areas and so on.

I know perfectly well that there are people who prey on the Africans. As the hon. the Minister will remember last year I was considering moving an instruction to the House at the Committee Stage of the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill. I withdrew it at the last moment because I was worried about the wide manner in which the clause was worded. I have therefore no objection in principle to this clause and I will not vote against it. I believe it is quite correct that some steps should be taken to stop the activities of people who operate in all the urban areas, people who purport to assist the Africans and, in fact, take large sums of money from people who can ill afford it for services which they know perfectly well they are not going to be able to render. I know of a case of a Southern Rhodesian African. He came to see me and told me he had paid £25 (R50) to a firm which had promised him that they would get him a permit to remain in Johannesburg. I knew perfectly well that this could never be obtained. The man had obviously been encouraged to give money under false pretences. So the principle is correct.

As the hon. member for Durban (North) has pointed out, there are, however, other organizations which work on an entirely different basis, organizations which only have the welfare of the Africans at heart although the hon. the Minister may not agree with some of their motives. In fact, Sir, I think the hon. the Minister would do well to go and visit some of the offices, such as the Advice Office in Athlone. They try to assist Africans to work their way through the complicated laws which govern the lives of Africans coming into the urban areas. If he goes there he will see that these are not undermining or subversive activities. Indeed they do a great deal to off-set the natural consequences of racial friction caused by the laws and caused by the fact that people are being endorsed out of the area and so on. It is not only these organizations, but also religious organizations which do assist Africans, who have difficulties with the law, difficulties in interpreting the law and in fact adhering to the law. I sincerely hope that it is not the hon. Minister’s intention in any way to hamper the activities of such organizations. My amendment simply lays down that no person should receive money from any Bantu. I changed the word “respect” to “consideration”, simply on the advice of a legal expert, because the court has found that the word “consideration” is wider than the word “respect”, and it is difficult for the court to interpret the words “in respect of”. The rest of my amendment is simply to pin down this clause so that it can apply only to people who receive money from a Bantu. In other words, the Quaker organization, the Black Sash, the Institute for Race Relations and religious organizations that are kept going in fact by the voluntary donations from the public, and thereafter render a service to the Africans in order to assist in getting them a pass, or permission to remain in the area, or to obtain employment, should not fall foul of the law by virtue of this new 43sept, which is being introduced, and I hope that the hon. Minister will accept this amendment.

I should like to ask the Minister to stand by the clause as it is and not to accept the amendment, firstly because it leaves room for abuse. Somebody may now make misuse of this organization in order to get money from the Bantu. Secondly, the organizations which are continuously busy with the type of thing we want to prohibit here, the giving of advice on these various matters which are mentioned in this clause, are all organisations with a political colour. I think of the Institute for Race Relations, the Black Sash—they all have a political tinge and they do not render assistance as charity but do so because they have a political slant, and have ulterior motives. I think we should in the first place leave this matter in the hands of our Department. The Bantu affairs commissioner is often depicted to the Bantu as a bully, instead of being depicted as he really is, a source of assistance for the Bantu to whom he can go in his need. He is really a friend of the Bantu. I come into very close contact with our Bantu affairs commissioners and with the officials of our Department right throughout the country, and throughout these officials have a warm heart for the Bantu and wish to assist him wherever possible. In the first place the Bantu ought to go to them as persons who can help him and who will do so gratis, but now aid centres are being established in terms of this Bill also to render assistance in regard to this sort of thing, and we do not need the other organizations. For those reasons I feel we should retain the clause as it stands.

Amendments proposed by Mrs. Suzman, put and a division demanded.

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

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 77,

I move as an amendment—

This paragraph is really unnecessary. Only after the Bill had been drafted did it come to our notice that in the meantime regulations had been issued which had already remedied the position, and for that reason this paragraph is not necessary.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 78,

I move—

Hon. members will see that the clause as it stands provides for the establishment of community authorities, and as it stands there it means that there will be consultation for the establishment of these community authorities, but actually in the past there was also always consultation with other authorities, and I should like to have the position stated correctly. Hence the amendment. Now “consultation” is inserted in the proviso so that it covers everything.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 79,

I move as an amendment that—

I apologize for not having been able to get this amendment on the Order Paper through pressure of work. Hon. members who know how the Bantu authorities operate will know that some of the people are councillors and as such they are appointed automatically, and the others are the ordinary members. We have to make provision for covering both the councillor and the ordinary member.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. On Clause 91,

I move as an amendment—

This is a consequential amendment which has become necessary as a result of the fact that in December 1963 regulations were published to replace the old regulations of 1957. This is just to make provision for the newer regulations of 1963.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. On Clause 100,

I move—

There are two amendments standing in my name, but I am not moving the first one. The tendency of the second amendment is the same as that of the first one and it has been asked for by the law-advisers. It does not affect the contents of the clause, but it is necessary to include the word “corresponding” which was omitted unfortunately. For that reason we have redrafted that part of the clause and I therefore move the second amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 101 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 First Schedule,

In this Schedule as well as the other Schedules a large number of farmers are involved, and I just want to make the appeal to the Government that whatever farms are involved in these Schedules, or whatever farms have got to be sacrificed, that those farmers are not going to be treated as the Government has treated those in other released areas that have been added to the Schedule over the past years. There are released areas where the farmers have been waiting for over two years for the Government to purchase the farms, there are others who have been there since 1936 whose farms have not yet been purchased. I think the hon. Minister must realize the invidious position in which those farmers are placed. They are in the unfortunate position that they are not precluded from selling, but that nobody wants to buy. Nobody will buy those farms because they know that they ultimately will have to be purchased by the Native Trust. So they sit there, they can do nothing on those farms, they cannot improve them. So I want to put it to the Minister that those people are living under a prejudice for as long as they are kept waiting. I want to ask the hon. Minister, having released these areas, get about it and purchase the farms in order to relieve these people of that embarrassment of having to sit there for years. Surely the hon. Minister must feel that he should be a bit merciful towards those people. The larger farmers can accommodate themselves wherever they find their feet. I am referring particularly to the Umdanzane area. Those are all small farmers and they have to accommodate themselves somewhere, and there are few places in South Africa in which they can accommodate themselves with the same conditions prevailing and the same markets available to them. The conditions I have mentioned apply there. They have been sitting for two solid years waiting for the Government to purchase their land. I think the Government is absolutely unreasonable in asking those men after the release of their farms to sit there and wait at the pleasure of the Government before their farms are purchased. I want to make this final plea: Please under these circumstances purchase those farms and release these people, be merciful to them and let them get out and accommodate themselves as best as they can.

First schedule put, and the Committee divided:

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

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

First Schedule accordingly agreed to.

On the Second Schedule,

I would like to refer to what I spoke about on the First Schedule …

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member for King William’s Town that I allowed him to make a special appeal to the hon. Deputy Minister on the First Schedule, but in actual fact he must confine himself to the particulars of the schedule.

Very good, Sir, may I ask the hon. Deputy Minister whether he intends to take into consideration in the Second Schedule the fact that the bulk of the land that is to be found …

Order! No, I cannot allow the hon. member to go into that now. The hon. member must read the Second Schedule in conjunction with Clause 37. and now he must confine himself to the particulars of the schedule.

Sir, I am confining myself to the particulars that are embodied within the perimeter of this area. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he has considered the fact that an enormous portion of this area represents Crown land or State land over which these farmers have a prescriptive right. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he intends to compensate those farmers who will not be displaced by virtue of the fact that they have a prescriptive right over this grazing land, and have had that over the last 150 years.

Order! That cannot be discussed now.

Schedule put and agreed to. (Official Opposition dissenting.)

Third Schedule put and agreed to. (Official Opposition dissenting.)

Title of the Bill put and agreed to. (Official Opposition dissenting.)