In terms of Section 33 of the Standing Rules and Orders, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz. the confusion and profiteering resulting from the change-over from sterling to decimal currency in the Union.

The hon. member, in terms of Standing Order No. 33, furnished me with a copy of his proposed motion and I have therefore had an opportunity of considering it. Although the matter is one of public importance, I do not think that it is of sufficient urgency to warrant a discussion at the present juncture, particularly in view of the recent statements which have been made on the subject by the responsible Minister. If the position has not changed within the next few days the hon. member may again raise the matter and I shall then be prepared to reconsider allowing his motion.

I think it is just as well that I should recapitulate briefly that when this debate terminated on Thursday, we were discussing Clause 4, to which amendments had been moved. It is our intention, in view of the Minister’s attitude in regard to the amendment, to vote against sub-section (a) of the clause and against the clause as it is. I think it is necessary to remind the Committee that we are now dealing with an amendment to the Act which will give the claims officer the right to penalize an unemployed worker up to 13 weeks whereas the existing Act limited such punishment to six weeks. We can see no justification for this increase and for that reason we are opposing the clause as printed.

I should like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he is putting tremendous powers into the hands of these officials, almost judicial powers. These officials are not really trained to handle this type of work but they are given penal powers over a man and his family to practically deprive them of their living for 13 weeks. No judicial inquiry is held and it is purely and simply the impression the particular man may make on the official that may decide the issue. The official is not trained in the analysis of evidence and he is likely therefore to take unequal, and sometimes unjust, action. The hon. the Minister is faced with the problem of officers perhaps shrinking from carrying out their duty where it has such serious effect on the man’s family and on his occupation, and on the other hand, he may have officials who are intolerant, or perhaps not able to appreciate the gravity of what is happening and what may result from their action. Therefore he will obtain different results in different locations. He will also find perhaps that where different officials are on duty on different days, they may act unequally, and I would beg the hon. the Minister therefore, to consider this seriously because of the effect it may have on his own Department.

Question put: That paragraph (a), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

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

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Durrant negatived.

Remaining amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 5,

This clause deals with the Schedule which lays down the rate of contribution per week by the employer and by every contributor. The request has come from certain employers that there should be at the same time as provision is made for contributions by the week, also the necessary Schedule giving the contributions on a monthly basis. An extract from a letter which I have received will give one of the reasons why this amendment is sought—

The simple issue is that the Act lays down the benefits to be paid out on a weekly basis and the contributions are also based on weekly payments. The request here is that the hon. Minister should consider whether it is not possible to give an equivalent monthly contribution rate, both by employers and contributors. There may be complicating factors which are not easily discernible from the administrative point of view. I do not know. But on the face of it, it does appear to me reasonable that in the case of monthly paid workers there should be an equivalent monthly rate of contributions by employers. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider this aspect, and if he finds that it is possible to do so, I want to ask him to introduce an amendment in the Other Place to give effect to it.

The main disadvantage, as I understand the position, is that it is not possible to get a completely equivalent monthly contribution rate, but I believe that in order to assist the administration of the scheme, the employers will have no objection should they have to pay a slightly higher “rate than the equivalent weekly rate. They would prefer that to the additional work which they are involved in month by month as a result of the fluctuations in the number of Saturdays in a month. I hope the hon. Minister will give this matter his consideration. I did mention it to his Department, and so prior notice was given that I was going to raise this matter under Clause 5, and I hope that the hon. Minister has had ample opportunity to consider it.

During the second-reading discussion of the Bill, I raised the whole question of the financial position of the fund, with specific reference to the rate of the contributions paid by employers and employees respectively. The hon. Minister was kind enough to indicate that he would give some consideration to the suggestion I made for an actuarial valuation of this fund to take place now, and he also indicated that he had himself ordered a review of the whole financial position of the fund, and its ability to meet its commitments under existing circumstances and under estimated conditions of the future.

The Minister is aware that the capital position of the fund presently is not increasing; it is in actuality declining and that has been the position during the next few years as a result of rising unemployment and the payment of additional benefits that have been made available to contributors in the past three or four years. At the same time, in the new Schedule we have now the two additional groups 11 and 12. The hon. Minister has fixed that himself, as I understand it, but stated that there was agreement as far as the Unemployment Insurance Board is concerned in regard to the increased level of contribution and the division of these respective groups. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, in making that agreement and accepting it, was any consideration given to representations from trade unions that the level of contributions by employers should also receive consideration without the arbitrary fixing of a different level of contribution by the contributors when these groups are added.

The Minister knows that the highest level of contribution is 12c per contributor per week, but the contribution of employers has remained static from group 6 to group 12 at 8c per week. In this regard I would ask the hon. the Minister: When he is having this matter reviewed—I take it that it will be a departmental review—would the hon. the Minister consider whether the contribution level of employers in respect of the higher groups should not also be brought on par with the same level of contributions of the employees? It is clear that the Minister having ordered a review, must be concerned about the declining capital amount in the fund under present conditions, and if an increased level of contribution has to be made to meet the situation, it seems to be fair that we should go back to the old principle that “What you contribute, I contribute”, an equal level of contribution by employers and employees. It is argued by the trade unions that the decline in the capital position of the fund could be met by bringing the contributions of the employers on the same level of those of the employees. I would plead with the hon. the Minister when he orders this review of the financial position of the fund, to ask his officers to give serious consideration to that aspect as to whether or not the old principle should not again apply in regard to contributions to the fund.

In reply to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), I wish to say that the idea of monthly payments is rather impracticable at this stage. We discussed this matter with our unemployment commissioner and he advised us during the week-end that he had considered it very fully but found it very difficult to assist us in that respect now, because if contributions were to be made monthly they would have to be worked out on a four-and-a-third-week basis and that would mean that we would have to work in thirds of cents, which on most accounting machines would be a difficult if not impossible thing to do. In that respect our commissioner advises us against the introduction of contributions on a monthly basis. On the other hand, we have the experience of the last 14 years. This Schedule has been in force for the last 14 years, ever since this Act became law, and for the past 14 years we have experienced very little trouble with the existing weekly basis. But, apart from that, I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that during the recess we shall give further consideration to the practicability of having an additional Schedule on a monthly basis.

As regards the hon. member for Turffontein’s (Mr. Durrant) plea about equalizing employers’ and employees’ contributions to the fund, I can state that it is correct that at the moment the employers pay 8c as against the 12c of the employees—at least, that will be the position in future. This, of course, has been agreed to by the Unemployment Insurance Board. They had the agreement before them of the same board of four years ago, of 1957, when we amended the Unemployment Insurance Act. In that year we added two additional groups, two higher-income groups, to the schedules of contributions and benefits. The employers on the board were willing to agree to the introduction of these two new groups provided it did not incur any extra contributions from their side. That was the agreement of 1957, and now, when the same board had to discuss these new contributions, the employees and the employers on that board felt that they would like to adhere to that agreement of four years ago. I may say, however, that I agree with the hon. member and think there is much to be said for the employers and the employees contributing the same amount. I think that is quite a reasonable request. The time will undoubtedly come when this will be seriously considered. As I have said in my second-reading speech, we are now busy revising the Act and perhaps it will be a good opportunity, when revising the Schedules, to ask the Unemployment Insurance Board again to go thoroughly into this aspect and to consider it as sympathetically as possible.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment; amendment to be considered on 21 February.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that I am expressing the sentiments of all hon. members when I say that order always has to be maintained as far as possible, but that it should always be done in a reasonable and humane manner. I also believe that everybody will agree with me when I say that order can best be maintained by people who have received military training and who are under strict control and have the necessary discipline to obey orders. I feel strongly on this point, and I am convinced that in our own country that is absolutely essential. I mean that in our country, where we have various population groups, order must always in all circumstances, if it is in any way possible to do so, be maintained by trained and strictly disciplined people who have received military training. That should particularly be so when there is a state of particular unrest. We are aware of the modern conditions prevailing in the world. We are also aware of the conditions prevailing on our own continent, and we should realize that the conditions prevailing on this continent have an effect on large sections of our population. For the rest, we cannot judge whether a world war will break out at a few moments’ notice or in the near future. That always remains a possibility and we must therefore be prepared for it. We must also be prepared in such a case to be able to cope with the unrest and the riots which might be caused as the result of it. Nor do we know how suddenly a limited war can break out and how our own circumstances will be affected by it. These circumstances are sufficient to make every serious citizen think and ask himself: How prepared are we for it? Will South Africa in the case of a swift change in conditions be prepared to maintain law and order and to defend our freedom? I may just mention that we are now preparing ourselves better in all directions, but weapons, etc., are of little value however, if the available manpower is lacking. If speedy action has to be taken, the manpower should be available to us as quickly as possible. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we provide in this amending legislation for a method of mobilizing the Defence Force, and particularly the Active Citizen Force. We have a sparsely populated country with long distances, and with the old methods much valuable time is necessarily lost. This loss of time may also have the effect in certain circumstances of making people take up their weapons of their own accord, and because they are not subject to military control they may act irresponsibly, or even mete out unnecessarily severe punishment. It is therefore in all the circumstances necessary to mobilize as swiftly as possible, and as I have already said, in this Bill we make provision for it.

But there is also another defect in the present legislation which we would like to remedy. If ever it should become necessary to fight on our own soil, or to suppress large-scale riots, it may become necessary for the sake of the safety of the public, or because of the necessity to carry on military operations more efficiently, to evacuate the public from certain areas. We can imagine how chaotic the position would be if ever we should have street fighting and without having the right to remove the public from that area. Particularly at the commencement of such fights curious members of the public may congregate to such an extent that they expose themselves to serious danger, and with the further result that, because they have to be borne in mind continuously, they make effective action quite impossible. Not only may it be necessary to evacuate members of the public for the sake of safety from certain areas, but unsystematic removal can also in its turn cause deprivation and confusion. Can we imagine what would happen if there should be a bomb attack or if there should be serious riots or violence and if we are only able to issue orders to the public to leave a certain area without us having the legal right to tell the public where they should go, so that they can receive proper protection and also be fed and sheltered? In time of need there will be no time to ask every member of the public where precisely he wants to go. Furthermore, all areas of the country must be protected as far as possible. In time of unrest it will be impossible to defend people who live far from each other in the danger zones. If it therefore becomes necessary to bring such people together for the sake of their own safety we should have the right to tell those people where to go. I notice, Sir, that objection has been raised particularly to this portion of Clause 18 which provides that we can bring people together and tell them where to go. We can omit it, but I think that would remind one of the story of the little boy who used bad language and whose mother told him: “John, I think you had better leave the house.” Johnny said: “All right, I’ll go.” His mother then packed a suitcase for him and he left. Half an hour afterwards he was still standing at the door. His mother then asked him: “Johnny, why don’t you go?” John replied: “Well, I’ll go, but where the devil must I go to?” If we merely tell people in certain circumstances to leave a certain area, I think it is only humane to tell them where to go. But because the feeling perhaps exists that by means of this provision we want to establish concentration camps in a disguised manner, I shall be prepared during the Committee Stage to set a time limit in this respect. Supposing, e.g., that one can only tell people where to go during a period of four days, so that proper arrangements can be made for the orderly distribution of these people in case of emergency, I think that would dispel the idea that we are trying to establish concentration camps.

During the two and a half years that the Defence Act of 1957 has now been in operation it was found, in applying the provisions, that other minor amendments have become necessary, amendments whereby the Act can be made more flexible and which will appreciably facilitate its administration. It has, e.g., become apparent that in view of the composition of the Defence Force as it is at present, when the Act was framed it was not borne in mind that reorganization and changes would ensue as the result of it, with the result that the reserve of officers was deprived of certain privileges, whilst in other cases it neglected to place certain obligations on the commandos. This Bill will remedy the position. The other amendments are none of them of a drastic nature and are practically all aimed at making improvements and at granting greater indemnification to the State in regard to customary State activities, such as the transportation of people who are transported in Government vehicles but who are not in the service of the State; and also where the State finds it necessary to protect Government property like ammunition dumps, airfields, etc.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to deal briefly with the amendments contained in the Bill. The object of Clause 1 is to put the salaries and allowances of members of the Defence Force, the auxiliary services and the nursing service on the same basis as that of the Public Service, viz. that changes in the salary scales or allowances should be made on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. That will result in these people immediately being taken into consideration for increases in salary instead of waiting until the amendment of the regulations concerned, which takes a lot of time, is completed. The amendments contained in Clauses 6 and 9 are consequential to this amendment.

The provisions of Clause 11 ensure that a member of the Active Citizen Force who voluntarily serves full time in case of war or of internal disorder will immediately be available for service in that regard. Such people usually occupy key positions, and it is quite inconceivable that these people should wait for four days until their calling up order has been published in the Government Gazette. If they serve in the force full time, particularly because they occupy key positions, we must of necessity immediately be able to all upon them to serve the public whenever necessary.

Clauses 12 and 13 are important. These clauses provide for the calling up of troops in case of war or internal disorder without the prior promulgation of a proclamation. The main object here is to save time, which might be of the utmost importance.

Clause 14 adds two new sections to the principal Act, firstly to provide for the calling up of troops by means of the radio, the Press, etc., and to give citizens the opportunity to offer excuses if they are not able to obey the mobilization orders. Furthermore, the military authorities are given legal powers to take action against such citizens if they should disobey such orders. Secondly, by the insertion of Section 92ter it is provided which services, and for how long, can be performed by a person who is receiving training in time of war or in connection with internal disorder, if those happenings should come to an end during the period of training.

The portion of Section 93 which is being deleted by Clause 15 is superfluous and misleading in view of the implications of the amendment of Sections 91 and 92 where provision is made for calling up for mobilization in a manner other than by proclamation.

Clause 16 also extends the power, e.g., to commandeer premises, buildings, vehicles, goods, etc., in time of war, to cases where it is necessary to prevent or suppress internal disorder.

In terms of Clause 17, which amends Section 102 of the principal Act, railway facilities and air services can also be made available to my Department in connection with internal disorder in the Union.

If it should be necessary for the effective protection of the Union or for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder, certain persons can be commanded to congregate in a particular area or evacuate an area in terms of the provisions of Clause 18.

Clause 19 extends the provisions of the Military Discipline Code to persons who in terms of that code are being detained in a detention barracks. I think, Mr. Speaker, that in the first instance this was a mistake made in framing the Act. The effect of the amendment contained in Clause 20 is that a member of a commando, just like a member of the Citizen Force or of the reserve, can be arrested and tried in the circumstances described in Section 110. We should remember that in terms of the new organization provided for in the Defence Act of 1957, which is being amended here, the commandos also form part of the Defence Force. That was of course an oversight at that time.

We moved amendments in that respect.

Clause 21 deletes Section 114 of the principal Act seeing that this section now becomes redundant as the result of the insertion of Section 92bis (3).

In view of the fact that vehicles and departmental drivers, despite the provisions of Section 141, are still under certain circumstances subject to the Provincial Ordinances, that possibility is eliminated by the provisions of Clause 22. I may just mention that there were negotiations in this respect with the various provincial councils, and that they all agree with it.

Clauses 23 and 24 provide that members of the reserve who are serving or receiving training can enjoy the same medical and other privileges as those provided for members of the Defence Force (excluding the Permanent Force) and cadets in Sections 145 and 146. In terms of Clause 26 any amendment to the principal Act will also be applicable to South West Africa. Unless we include this provision we shall have to mention, every time an amendment is made, that it will also apply to South West Africa. Clause 27 is only the short title.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Defence made clear in his introductory remarks the objects of and the necessity for this Bill. In general I think I can say right at the outset that we, as a practical Opposition, agree that certain of the amendments asked for in this Bill are both necessary and required for the smooth working of defence. I would go so far as to say that some of the present amendments have become necessary owing to the obstinate refusal of the hon. the Minister’s predecessor to accept practical advice from this side of the House when the original Bill was before this Parliament. You will find that in Hansard the amendments now proposed were put forward practically word for word by the Opposition but were rejected by the then Minister of Defence. In his closin remarks the hon. the Minister mentioned one section of this Bill which had become necessary as a result of what he would call an oversight at an earlier stage but, as I have said, it was not so much an oversight as a refusal to accept practical advice. In the majority of cases the hon. Minister will therefore find that as an Opposition we are in agreement with these clauses, and as we regard defence as not being a political issue we will be pleased to give him our co-operation.

The hon. the Minister referred in general to existing world conditions and to other conditions which have arisen in the past and which we hope will not be repeated in this country. He also mentioned the importance of the time factor in defence matters. I think it goes without saying that the time factor is of paramount importance. The difference measured in hours between being able to do something or not being able to do it, whilst waiting for approval, may well mean all the difference in the world between life and death for many people. We have had from the world at large, and from the Continent of Africa, graphic illustrations of what the loss of time can mean in terms of disaster and we must not be prepared to countenance that in our own organizations. This can be averted by the proposals now before this House. In regard to that particular aspect of the Bill I think the hon. the Minister can be reassured that we are entirely with him.

In the Bill there are certain clauses with which, with the best will in the world, we cannot agree and in respect of which we must seek further enlightenment. If that enlightenment is not to our satisfaction we must then seek certain adjustments of these proposals. I should like to deal first of all with a principle which is now introduced in this Bill and which to a large measure is legalizing and putting into formal defence language certain practices which have grown up over the years and become accepted as duties of the Defence Force of the country. They have placed certain obligations and responsibilities on the Defence Force, and as a result of custom we have grown so used to them that we regard them as a right, whilst at the same time they have not been enshrined in the defence legislation of the country. The object of the amendment in these cases is not only to make certain that these practices are made legal but to provide the necessary safeguards for the Department when performing them. I refer to actions which have generally become known as things like “mercy flights” and other tasks which have been allocated to the Defence Force in case of national disaster, floods, droughts, fires and that type of thing. It has become accepted—and I think by most nations in the world—that the defence forces have the only organization ready to undertake these tasks at short notice and they are called upon to deal with these matters from time to time. On occasion they find themselves hamstrung when defence regulations do not provide for one of the things they have to do. The early clauses of the Bill and Clause 25 to a large extent cover certain of these requirements and provide certain safeguards to defence when they are engaged upon these duties. Clauses 2, 3, 5 and 25 deal generally with the principle of limitation of indemnities to the State in certain cases of mishap and disaster which may unfortunately occur whilst these mercy services are being carried out. Both Clauses 5 and 25 deal with conditions under which certain classes of person can be transported in military planes or cars or vehicles or ships during a state of emergency or in carrying out what I have called mercy flights. Hitherto there has been a fairly complicated system of every individual having to sign indemnities and go through a considerable amount of red tape sometimes involving long delay. This Bill is intended to streamline this procedure and simplify it. However, it is also laid down in terms of these clauses that the Government is exempted from any liability for loss of life or damage to property arising out of the use of defence vehicles or ships or aircraft in the execution of those services, except in the case of wilful act or omission on the part of the person concerned, that is the driver of the vehicle, the pilot of a plane or the officer in charge of whatever form of conveyance is being used.

As this House well knows, and as I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree, the possibility of proving a wilful act or omission on the part of the officer in charge is so remote as to be almost negligible. We do feel that having accepted responsibility for the transport of these particular persons, or whatever it happens to be, there must be some qualification which would give an aggrieved person the normal right of access to the Courts should some disaster occur in which there is a loss of life or damage to property sustained by them, or their families if there is a fatal accident. We feel that the word “wilful” goes rather too far in 1his particular respect and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, when he replies, whether he would be prepared to reconsider the question of the inclusion of the words “wilful act” and lift it to the ordinary standard procedure whereby in regard to this “any act or omission”, the onus of proof then being on the aggrieved individual, if he feels he has a case, to prove it. The State, on its side, would then also have to satisfy the court that the obligation does not rest on them. The indemnity applies to the person who, of his own free will, obtains transport by military vehicle of some sort under these conditions. But there is another type of person. This amendment as it now reads could also be applied to the case of the transport of people against their own free will. May I put it this way: The one very large factor in the amending Bill is an attempt to streamline the procedure of the Defence Forces so as to enable them to be made use of in both the prevention and suppression of internal disorder to an extent not ever envisaged when the original Defence Act was passed. In the relevant provisions now being amended it is possible for people to be ordered into vehicles or aircraft or ships or some other kind of transport, to take them from one particular area to another; people who have been arrested and are being removed in the interests of law and order. They have no say as to what form of transport they should go in. They are ordered to go as prisoners who are under detention or who are being held by the police or the military and are being moved away at the wish or the order of the State. It does seem a drastic provision that if any accident should occur to the vehicle in which they are travelling as a result of which they suffer injury or death, that they or their families would have to prove that that accident was a result of the wilful act or omission of the individual in charge. They have no say in the use of the vehicles they go in. They go willy-nilly because they are ordered to do so, and we feel that for the State to exempt itself from liability by using the term “wilful act” is going much too far. Then, also, we would ask the hon. the Minister, when he replies, to give us an assurance that this particular indemnity will be reviewed, failing which, when the Committee Stage comes forward we shall have to move a suitable amendment in an endeavour to soften the blow in that respect.

There is another aspect of one of these clauses which I should like to mention. I refer to Clause 10 which amends Section 89 of the principal Act. That perfectly sound provision in itself deals, in general, with security measures to be adopted where necessary for the efficient defence of certain defence installations such as dockyards, barracks, magazines, wireless stations, ports and harbours and all these things which go to make up your defence pattern. The amending Bill now provides for certain powers to debar the public from access to these places. Nobody can cavil at that, it is quite customary and has always been accepted as part of war preparations. But the clause then goes on to say that in case of accident the Government will not be liable for the compensation of any person except where it can be proved that there was a case of wilful act or omission. The usual procedure—and this is enshrined in the legislation itself—is that the officer commanding an area which is to be used, for example, as a bombing range or a target range or a minefield for training purposes, erects or publishes or causes to be issued in some other form, warning notices drawing the attention of the public to the danger. If the public ignores those notices then they have asked for trouble and found it and nobody will squeal. But this particular measure now lays down that if a commanding officer fails to exhibit those warning notices or fails to publish the notice …

If he does not publish the notice then he, is not acting in conformity with the provisions of this Bill.

The hon. the Minister says that if he does not put up the notice he is not acting in conformity with the Bill. I agree, but that is very poor consolation to the chap who has had both legs blown off in a minefield and then has to prove that the officer concerned was wilfully ignoring the provisions of the Bill. May I put it this way, that the insertion of the word “wilful” is going too far. Let me put it to the hon. the Minister this way as an example. The country has defence centres near Bloemfontein and at Oudtshoorn and various other parts, large areas of land which are set aside for training purposes in all sorts of arms and explosives which can do a lot of damage. For parts of the year they lie idle. They are in farming territory. Cattle unfortunately cannot read the notices, and they are liable to stray because these areas are large and are not all properly, fenced, and the farmers in the area have been accustomed for years to letting their animals graze there. Portion of that area can now be used for a bombing range or for an artillery shoot or a minefield, and no notice is given, through the omission of the Commanding Officer, that such is the case, and the farmer suffers serious damages. We say it is not to be expected that the farmer should be penalized unless he can prove that the omission was wilful on the part of the officer in charge. I can understand the amendment endeavouring to make it easier for the commanding officer to post this notice without having to go to headquarters, but we on this side strongly feel that a case exists here for the deletion of the word “wilful”. That where there is an act or omission by the commanding officer, the Government must accept this liability the same as any other person or concern would have to do, where there is proof to the satisfaction of a court that this damage was caused as the result of some omission. The Government cannot shelter behind the difficult hedge of requiring proof that there was wilful omission. These are certain of the features. There are others.

I refer particularly to Clauses 16, 17 and 18. I think Clause 18 is most important. The hon. the Minister dealt with it in his opening remarks and told us that he was prepared to consider a certain alleviation there in the Committee Stage by a limitation of the time factor, and I think the Minister suggested four days. This Clause 18 amends Section 103 of the original Act and it adds a Section 103bis to that section. It says that—

The hon. the Minister referred to world conditions. We on this side concede readily that under present-day conditions very fine distinctions have developed which separate what has been known as a cold war or internal disorder from a shooting war, and that makes it difficult to define where the one ends and the other commences. It is difficult to decide whether internal disorder which is organized by some exterior force will in fact cripple the country’s war effort. It is very difficult to define where the precautions to protect against danger to the State in an action very similar to war action commences, and at what stage you have to move in to prevent such action crippling your war effort. There I agree with the Minister that one of the paramount essentials is speed. You cannot wait to pass an Act of Parliament, or for somebody to give authority. By that time it is too late. We have had many graphic examples which we do not want to see happening within our own borders. But as an Opposition it has always been our policy to take a stand against anything which appears to be unnecessarily limiting or interfering with the rights of the individual, unless there is proof that there is adequate need for such interference and that the safeguards provided to limit that interference are also adequate. The Government is responsible for the security of the State, and the Government is therefore within its rights in asking for powers which they consider are necessary to provide for the safety of the State. We are faced with that position when we come to deal with Clause 18. The hon. the Minister, in quoting certain examples with regard to Clause 18, referred to people who, for the sake of their own security, have to be removed. For example, the Defence Authorities may have knowledge that in a certain area action is to be expected within the next 24 hours, which will imperil the safety of the civilians in the area, and in the best interests of these people they should be moved out. But it goes further than that. The amendment contained in this Bill also gives the power to order the removal of any class of person, any group, and again I use the example of a small Native location like the one at Simonstown, with about 1,000 inhabitants. The Government has information which makes them believe that there are certain movements taking place inside that location which may affect the security of the naval base, and under this clause they would have the right to remove the whole of the occupants of that location to some other area.

I never thought of it that way, but in those circumstances it might be very necessary.

I am not denying the necessity. The onus to decide on the necessity or otherwise of such a step rests entirely with the State, because the Government is responsible for the security of the country. This particular measure does give that power, and one can give many examples even more far-reaching than that. It seems to us that it is a very drastic power to give in time of peace, because we are not dealing now only with war-time, to any Government unless there are adequate safeguards to make certain that such powers are not abused. Section 103 of the Act, which is being amended by Clause 18, contains certain very drastic powers, but in general only operative in time of war, and the powers are operated in that case through the Governor-General, who may in time of war by proclamation in the Gazette publish regulations affecting the defence of the Union. But there are provisos that any such regulation promulgated must be subject to the normal safeguards applied by Parliament, i.e. that they shall be tabled in both Houses within 14 days, or if the House is not sitting, within 14 days of the commencement of the next session. The hon. the Minister might well reply that that is a long time to wait, but those are the safeguards that exist to-day. They are a brake on the hasty use or abuse of far-reaching powers, and they not only apply only in war-time, they go further than that. Section 103 provides that the Governor-General can only use these powers in a war in which where, by proclamation in the Gazette, he has made it quite clear that the Union is engaged. In other words, war would have to be declared officially before the Governor-General may use these powers. Now those are safeguards. They may not be adequate but they are the customary safeguards which the Parliament of the country has from time to time imposed on the granting of power such as this. Clause 18 introduces a very important principle which, under war-time conditions, has been accepted in the interests of national defence and safety, where the nation takes precedence over the individual and where individual liberty often has to be sacrificed in the interest of national security. Yet even under such war-time conditions fairly stringent safeguards are imposed to ensure that these powers are not abused. In terms of this amendment we are asked in time of war, or for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder, to grant these powers. No sensible man would stand in the way of preventing something rather than suppressing it after it has happened. Prevention is still better than cure, and therefore, if measures are necessary which will prevent something from happening, it is much better to act then rather than wait until the thing is accomplished. But the new principle contained in Clause 18 not only extends war-time control to peace-time, even if it is under emergency conditions, but gives power to the Minister, and not to the Governor-General, to put these regulations into operation without any subsequent reference to or approval by Parliament. In the original section, unless Parliament approves of these measures within a certain period, they lapse.

We can consider that.

Frankly, we do not like this extended power, but in the interests of national security, and in the times in which we live, as a reasonable Opposition we feel that the Government, being responsible for the security of the nation, has the right to expect Parliament to grant the necessary powers, but that does not mean that we are very happy about it. I am glad the Minister has said he will consider it. In the Committee Stage we will raise these issues in more detail and endeavour to get some safeguard included in the Bill.

Other than that, this amending Bill in itself undoubtedly applies to the Defence Act certain practical lessons which no doubt have been learnt by the Defence Authorities during the recent emergency. It is the first test that the Defence Act has really had under conditions which in any way approximate to the conditions which might be expected in time of war, and I think it is an open secret that considerable difficulty in administration was experienced and obstacles were encountered, and legislation has to be passed to remove these obstacles and to provide for the smooth working of our defence. At the same time we have to face the fact that the legislation now before us makes provision for the policy of the Government in streamlining the defence of the country to deal with matters of internal security rather than its original concept of defence against external aggression. We are not big enough to do both at the same time with success and we are concentrating on the home job, but it is so difficult to define where the one begins and the other ends that we cannot really criticize the Government for that. I would like to take this opportunity, as it is the first measure of importance to be introduced by the Minister since he took office, to express our appreciation to him for the fact that the measure before us undoubtedly bears the imprint of the experienced soldier who has seen the weaknesses in the system and is taking action to see that it is remedied. I would like to express our appreciation to the Minister for having made it possible for these experienced officers to use their knowledge and experience in defence matters. It is a step in the right direction, and its effect already on the restoration of morale in the various branches of the services has been most marked. From a study of the Bill before us one can see that guiding hand of experience and I am glad the Minister has been able to help in that direction and give it his blessing. It obviously sets out to remedy a number of defects which have been discovered, and from our point of view, with the qualifications I have voiced, this side of the House in general is prepared to give the Bill our support.

I think everyone on this side of the House will agree that the present Minister of Defence is applying himself with all his great capabilities and enthusiasm to the task of leading the Department he controls. He is a Minister in whom I personally have great confidence. For that reason I am particularly sorry that this Bill, which for the most part is one to streamline the Defence Act, contains certain provisions which in my opinion not merely militate against its value but are potentially dangerous. I want to tell the Minister calmly and dispassionately why I think so.

A number of these provisions have been inserted in the Bill to streamline the Defence Act, to enable the achievement of greater efficiency and ability in time of war and emergency. On some of them we may have some comments to make, but I think those comments can be made more appropriately in the Committee Stage. The sort of thing I have in mind is what was mentioned by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) when he referred to the indemnities given to the Minister of Defence and the Government in respect, e.g., of the transportation of private citizens. Clause 25 of the Bill, as the hon. member for Simonstown pointed out, states that the Government shall not be liable except in the case of any wilful act or omission on the part of any of its servants. One can visualize a case in which a private citizen is killed through the gross negligence of a Government official. It seems to me that in such a case the liability of the Government should not be excluded because in terms of Clause 25 it is only a wilful act or omission on the part of a Government servant which would saddle the Government with responsibility. Take the case of a person being transported in a motor car. Unless you can prove that the driver of the car deliberately intended to kill the passenger, which would amount to murder, the passenger or his dependants would have no recourse against the Government. It seems to me that that requires further consideration.

Now, I want to get down very briefly to the crux of the objection that we on this side have to this Bill. In order to do that, I want to point out to the Minister that he uses a number of phrases in the Bill without any attempt whatever to define them. If the Minister looks at Clause 5, which now adds a new sub-section (3) to Section 76 of the Act, he will find these words used—

Now the dominant words there are “in case of emergency”. Nowhere in this Bill or in the main Act can I find this word “emergency” defined. The word “emergency” is of course used in the Public Safety Act and in terms of that Act the Governor-General may proclaim a statutory state of emergency, and that term is defined and we know what we are dealing with, but here the word “emergency” is used and you may go to the Oxford Dictionary and find a definition of the word “emergency”, but this Bill does not define what is meant by a state of emergency and when it begins.

Do not the subsequent sub-sections make it clear?

If the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) can help me, I shall be very grateful.

There is the case of mercy flights, for instance, where a sick person has to be removed, or someone requests the Government to give a helping hand.

Well, that is helpful, but I raise this specifically because when we come to Clauses 16, 17 and 18—and those are the clauses on which I want to join issue with the Minister—we do not find the word “emergency” used. An emergency in the context of South African affairs has acquired a particular connotation. We had a statutory state of emergency last year, and when one talks about an emergency in a Bill and one gives the Government added powers to deal with it, we naturally think in terms of a state of emergency which has arisen due to some internal clash or disorder. The words used are “during operations for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder in the Union”. Again I say that these words “internal disorder” are not defined in the Bill or in the Act. We are therefore left with a very large measure of uncertainty. I have understood the position to be hitherto that in this country there are three possible states. You either live in the piping days of peace or in a state of war, where there has been a declaration of war, or alas, we live in the days of a state of emergency.

There is a cold war, too.

Now that is a very interesting observation. It may be that the hon. member may have something to tell us about the cold war. It may be that these words “internal disorder” are meant to be synonymous with a cold war. But I think it is important to know because I accept in full the proposition salus publicae suprema lex—the safety of the public is the supreme law. In times of war, in times of real emergency, the State must have the power necessary to maintain law and internal order. It must have the power to suppress insurrection and any attempt to subvert the State. As far as I am concerned, and as far as hon. members in this corner are concerned, and I have no doubt my hon. friends on my right, we would be behind any Minister of Defence or Minister of Justice who has to maintain law and order. But, Sir, it is one thing to clothe a Minister of Justice or a Minister of Defence with extraordinary powers during a time of war or a time of real emergency, but it is quite another story to give in advance powers to a Minister of Defence which may be used to deal with some nebulous position on the basis that it is to prevent internal disorder. The crux of my objection to these three clauses, which in my view are fundamental because they go to the very roots of the liberty of the individual, is that the Minister is seeking to take totalitarian powers which are to be exercised not during a statutory state of emergency or after the declaration of war, but for the purpose of suppressing or preventing what is called internal disorder. May I put it this way. He is taking these powers to do it without a declaration that there is an emergency; in other words, he is taking these powers by a back door. The Government does not come into the open and declare that the country has reached such a state that an emergency must be declared and that therefore the Government must have these powers. The Minister takes these powers in advance, totalitarian powers, which can be exercised at any time of the day or night, at any time now or in future, if Parliament gives these powers to him, without declaring a state of emergency, and he will then have the totalitarian powers of any communist, fascist or Nazi régime. Sir, there is no recourse to the courts. I come back to my request to the Minister to define “emergency” or “internal disorder”. This Minister, as I say, is a good Minister, but I am dealing with what is going on to the Statute Book and exercised by someone who may succeed the Minister—the Minister of Health for instance. I am considering those possibilities. Our history is brimful of examples of assurances which have been given and which have not been carried out subsequently. We have heard of the doctrine of the dead hand of the past. If, Sir, a state of emergency has arisen in this country where it is necessary to take preventive action to prevent any disorder, then I say we are already in an emergency, and then why not declare an emergency then? The Governor-General can proclaim a state of emergency in a couple of minutes, but I say that it is dangerous and unprecedented to clothe any Minister with these drastic powers without the Government committing itself either to a state of war, if war is necessary, or a statutory state of emergency if conditions in the country demand that such a statutory state of emergency should be declared. Look at these powers which are taken in the Bill. Let me take Clause 16 which amends Section 100 of the Act. Section 100 of Act 44 of 1957, the principal Act, says that in times of war or internal disorder the Governor-General may authorize and appoint an officer of the South African Defence Force to do various things; he can commandeer vehicles, aircraft, vessels, machinery, equipment, animals, foodstuff, forage, fuel and oils and all sorts of other things. Now the proposal is to insert “during, operations for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder” after the words “in time of war or internal disorder”. Sir, it is one thing to have these powers of commandeering during a state of war. It is also no doubt appropriate in the interests of the State to be able to exercise those powers when there is internal disorder. We have now had that defined by the Public Safety Act. We can now declare a state of emergency. But it is a completely different proposition to clothe a Minister with powers to do that during operations for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder. What are those operations for the prevention of disorder? I repeat that if it is necessary to embark upon operations for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder, then we must have reached the stage where we already have an emergency and the Government should declare that that is so and make it apparent to the world that we are in a state of emergency. It must not do it behind the counter. It must not exercise totalitarian powers on the basis that we are living in the piping days of peace. The Government wants to have it both ways. The Government wants to be able to face the outside world on the basis that all is well with us and at the same time have an opportunity of exercising these most drastic powers. Take Clause 17. Clause 17 amends Section 102 of the principal Act, and Section 102 empowers the Governor-General in times of war to authorize any officer of the South African Defence Force to assume control over any railway system or air service or any portion thereof within the Union. Now in terms of this amendment the Minister would be empowered to cross over to the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport and take over the whole transportation system of this country. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) says it might be a good idea; that is a matter of opinion. The hon. the Minister of Defence may, of course, be able to get the suburban trains to run on time; but that is not what we are considering. We are considering the question of the Minister of Defence taking under his control the whole transportation system of this country, not because we are in a state of war, not because there is a statutory state of emergency, but because someone has suggested that people are going to poison the wells at Hartebeespoort Dam, or because someone has suggested that the communists are going to poison that dam. The Minister then immediately takes over the control of the whole transportation system.

It states specifically in time of war.

It does not specifically say in time of war. The amendment reads “or during operations for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder”. In other words, for the prevention of the poisoning of the dam at Blikkiesfontein. The Minister may want to prevent the pollution of air—notice of such a Bill was given here this afternoon—and he may then decide that some emergency has arisen and proceed to take these drastic powers.

Sir, I then come to Clause 18. Clause 18 adds a Section 103bis to Section 103, and it states—

Sir, think what that means. When we construe that clause and give it its ordinary meaning, the Minister—of course, the Minister may repudiate any such intention and if he does I will accept his repudiation at once—may avail himself of the powers under that clause to detain persons who may be regarded by the Government of the day as having subversive intentions and being a danger to the safety of the State.

Surely the member knows that this amendment has nothing to do with that. They have the power to act under any circumstances.

The hon. the Minister has missed my point. The Minister of Justice has powers to detain people once an emergency has been declared, under the Public Safety Act, but the Minister of Defence is asking for the power to detain persons without an emergency having been declared, or without a state of war having been declared, and that is the danger. We are living in a perpetual emergency. Let us see how far it goes; take the question of Pondoland. We have had the extraordinary position that the Minister of Bantu Administration, having once declared an emergency in Pondoland, excluded representatives of the Press from that area—very foolishly, very bad public relations, one of the greatest blunders of a blundering Minister. But think what will happen where you have another Pondoland in the future if the Minister of Defence has these powers. There would be no need then to exercise any censorship—you would have automatic censorship because all that the Minister would have to do would be to order a particular class of persons to remove from an area and he would simply order Press correspondents to remove from the area. By a stroke of the pen he would exercise Press censorship overnight, without a state of emergency. He could order journalists, politicians, Members of Parliament to get out of the place because he thinks there is some troublesome business going on in one particular part of the Union. Sir, the Minister may and the Government may have to have these powers in time of war; it may have to have these powers if real emergency has arisen and a state of emergency has been declared, but in my view we would be creating a desperately dangerous precedent if we allowed the Minister or any Minister or any Government to have such drastic powers of control over the life and the liberties and the freedom of individuals in this country—not in a state of war or in a statutory emergency but merely on the ground that the Minister is acting in order to prevent internal disorder. I agree that prevention is better than cure, but if you have got to the stage where you have to commandeer the railway system, then in heaven’s name have we not already reached a state of emergency and cannot a state of emergency then be declared? And once a state of emergency has been declared, the Minister can have all these powers. He can issue regulations under the Public Safety Act—emergency regulations giving him all these powers. He could do that immediately on the declaration. I am sorry that we in this corner of the House will not be able to give our unqualified support to this Bill and I therefore move the following amendment—

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) very rightly pointed to the powers which are given to the Governor-General acting on the advice of the Minister of Defence, in time of war. Section 103 says that in time of war the Governor-General may, subject to certain provisos, issue regulations providing for the defence of the Union, the safety of the public, the maintenance of public order and the effective prosecution of such war, and for making adequate provision for dealing with circumstances which in his opinion have arisen as a result of such war. Sir, a very interesting commentary on this Bill now before this House is that the amending Bill does not seek to amend this section. It does not seek to give the Governor-General these powers to prevent internal disorder—the words used in Section 16. I draw what I regard as an irresistible inference from that omission, namely that the Minister or his advisers must know that if there is a war he has these unlimited powers to regulate for the safety of the State. He knows also that if an emergency is proclaimed under the Public Safety Act, he can also issue regulations under that Act to provide for the safety of the public and the maintenance of public order. Power is not taken to exercise these powers for the prevention of internal disorder. On the other hand, the Minister in Clauses 16, 17 and 18 does extend the totalitarian powers to a stage prior to the declaration of a statutory state of emergency, and therefore that must have some meaning. It seems to me that the only inference that can be drawn is that the intention is to enable the Government of the day not only to commandeer, not only to take over the transportation system of the country, but to interfere with the liberty of the public. The Minister says that is not his intention. My answer to him is to remind him of the well-known doctrine of Roman-Dutch Law that you are presumed to intend the reasonable consequence of your acts. If a statutory enactment is so framed as to enable the Government of the, day to use it for the purpose of detaining persons on political grounds, then I can only say that those who framed the Act must be presumed to have intended it; they may not in actual fact have intended it, but they are presumed to have intended it. Sir, I hope the hon. the Minister will bear in mind what I have tried to put to him and that he may be able to come with amendments which can meet our objections. I want to make it quite clear that no amendment will satisfy those who think as we on these benches do …

What is the use then of asking me to come with amendments?

I am sorry, I had not finished my sentence. I say that no amendment will satisfy us unless the Minister excludes from the additional powers asked for, authority to exercise these powers other than in a statutory state of emergency or in a state of war; in other words, the gravamen of my criticism of this Bill is that the Minister is seeking powers which should not be exercised when we are still ostensibly in a state of peace and not in a state of internal disorder. If we are in a state of internal disorder, then declare that state and then the Minister can have his. power …

With safeguards.

… with safeguards.

I second the amendment moved by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). This Bill, as I see it, contains a number of provisions to amend the Defence Act under three different headings. There are first of all certain provisions—not very many— which actually under ordinary circumstances seem to improve the Defence Act, and as the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) pointed out, some of these suggestions were actually put forward from the Opposition when the Defence Bill was under discussion. Now it has apparently been found from experience that those provisions are wise. However, there are only a few of them and they are not a very important part of the Bill. Then we come to a second category and that is a number of amendments which are designed to adapt the use of the Defence Force for times of emergency. The Defence Force is primarily intended as an instrument to protect South Africa in time of war. That is its traditional role, but unfortunately in the course of recent years the necessity has arisen, particularly in South Africa, to make provision for the employment of the Defence Force as an auxiliary reserve for the police in a time of internal emergency. Indeed, the Minister himself and in particular his predecessor, have informed the House quite frankly that the change in defence policy now is that the Defence Force, to a very great extent, has to be utilized more for the suppression of internal disturbances than for external defence.

I will never stand father to that idea.

It has been stated, particularly by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, that the reorganization of the Defence Force has been brought about very largely with the emphasis on internal defence rather than on external defence. If the Minister denies that fact, it brings an interesting new aspect into the situation, a new aspect of which the country is not aware, because his predecessor most certainly told the country frankly that with the reorganization of the Defence Force, the question of internal security was its primary role or certainly an extremely important role.

That Is better—an extremely important role.

Well, do not let us quibble about words. I say that it is perfectly clear —and I do not think the Minister will quarrel with me—that the role of the Defence Force in relation to internal security is a very important, if not its primary role to-day. The Minister says that it is not its primary role, but it certainly is a very important role. Sir, I do not think there is any member in this House who does not feel a very deep sense of regret that this has been necessary. I think it should go on record—and I think this is the right time to say it—that the prime responsibility for that situation rests with the Government.

What about communists; what about the cold war?

It rests with this Government, because this Government has been pursuing a policy, particularly in relation to race relations, which makes the role of the communist so much easier. Sir, if there is any place in the world to-day which is a happy hunting-ground, a fishing ground, for Communism, it is South Africa. I am not one to minimize the danger of communistic agitation. All I say is that what terrifies me is that here in South Africa, owing to the tensions that exist, tensions for which I very largely blame this Government, we have a happy hunting-ground for Communism. We all deeply regret the possibility of these disturbances. Let me say that when these disturbances have to be dealt with we realize, of course, that steps have to be taken and that when things get out of hand all the forces of the State have to be utilized to preserve law and order. Nobody quarrels with that, but the point I am making is that every thinking South African must feel deep regret that we have reached the stage now where the primary role of the Defence Force is the maintenance of internal security. I think it is a most regrettable development in our history.

I again object to the words “primary role that is the wrong idea.

At least the Minister says that it is a very important role. I will not quarrel with him in regard to terms. We can look up a speech that was made in the Other Place by his predecessor only about 18 months ago, in which his predecessor stressed the vital importance now of the role of the Defence Force in regard to internal disturbances. Before I leave that point I want to make one observation and I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me: The Defence Force itself hates this role. There is no role that the Defence Force itself dislikes more than having to deal with internal disturbances, because after all, what is an internal disturbances? There is a very, very narrow dividing line between a disturbance and what is virtually a civil war, so if there is any kind of conflict in which the soldier hates to be involved it is an internal disturbance. The Minister knows that the Defence Force dislikes that. Sir, in passing I say that the second category of amendments in this Bill is intended to facilitate the use of the Defence Force for internal emergencies; to make mobilization more rapid and generally to streamline the Defence Force for dealing with internal disturbances. As I say, we regret these provisions, but of course we cannot really take a stand against them because where a disturbance occurs obviously it has to be dealt with. I merely record our regret that all these amendments are necessary. I do not say that they are not necessary; I say it is to be regretted that they are apparently necessary.

Now we come to the third category and it is here that we take our stand, and we take our stand very strongly indeed. We oppose this third category of amendments as strongly as we are capable of doing. I refer to the amendments contained mainly in Clauses 16, 17 and 18 which were dealt with so forcefully and ably by the hon. member for Salt River. There is not a great deal that I can add to what he said in regard to the interpretation of these different clauses. I just want to analyse one or two aspects of this matter. There is this question of the powers that the Minister is taking to act at his own discretion during operations for the prevention of internal disorders. Sir, that sticks very much in our gizzards. What it amounts to is this, that when the Minister decides that there is a situation where action is required to prevent trouble —the Minister decides, so a tremendous responsibility rests on him—then he gets these tremendous powers to commandeer, to take over the control of the Railways, of the Airways and to order people to concentrate. With this latter power I shall deal later on. These are very drastic powers, Sir. Now, under what conditions can the Minister employ those powers? If he has to employ them when there is a state of war nobody will deny him the right to do so. If he has to employ them after the declaration of a state of emergency, then, too, we have to admit that the hon. the Minister must have the right to exercise such powers, although there, too, his responsibility to see that the powers are circumscribed is a very great one. It may be argued that the powers may not be sufficiently circumscribed even under those conditions. However, in principle he must have powers when a state of emergency has been declared. But now, Sir, we come to taking these powers when no state of emergency has been declared or when there is no state of war.

Where do you get that?

It says here clearly “during operations for the prevention of an emergency”.

He can act without a state of emergency.

Where do you get that from?

Under Clauses 16, 17 and 18, the Minister may act “during operations for the prevention of internal disorder There may not even be a state of emergency. Merely if the hon. the Minister sees a situation arising where he feels an emergency must be prevented, then he can take action. Now let us consider the situation. Supposing an irresponsible Minister on insufficiently proved reports, under panic conditions, decides that he has got to use the Defence Force for the prevention of a certain situation. Mr. Speaker, there are not even provisions here for tabling any full report in regard to this matter on the Table of Parliament. There are no limitations of any kind. We want to know how long such a period could be.

Read the Bill. Only four days.

Where do you get that?

Let us explain to the hon. member over there that the four-day period, which I am going to deal with in a moment, refers to this question of concentration, removing people from a place and concentrating them in an area. The hon. Minister was kind enough to say that he would accept an amendment that that should only apply to four days —that is in regard to those provisions. But it does not apply certainly to Clause 16 or to Clause 17, unless the hon. the Minister has some other amendment or wishes to place a limitation there as well, which he has not yet disclosed to the House.

We are dealing with the Bill.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is no good saying what the intentions are, or that the Minister does not want to do these things. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with this Bill, and, as I say, you may get an irresponsible Minister, a Minister perhaps who has drastic intentions (he may not even be irresponsible). There are such people who may like to take drastic action and it could be done under these particular clauses. Obviously this gives rise to another question: For how long could these operations for the prevention of a disturbance take place? One month, two months, three months? Why is there no limitation of some kind? As the hon. member for Salt River said so rightly: If a situation is so serious and such powers have got to be invoked, then surely the right thing to do is to declare a state of emergency? That brings me to the point that I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Does he realize that it will inevitably lead to the question being asked whether this is not a way of employing drastic powers without declaring a state of emergency? Is that not the case? Will this not enable drastic steps to be taken, drastic powers to be used, powers of detention and all the rest of it, without declaring a state of emergency? You see, Sir, in its sense, the mere declaration of a state of emergency has a certain sanction and a certain safeguard. The sanction is that obviously no government wishes to declare a state of emergency and invoke everything involved thereby. If you declare a state of emergency you are advertising to the world at large that a very serious state of affairs has arisen. A government does not like to do that. It leads to all sorts of unfortunate consequences which no government wants to face. Therefore I say that the question arises whether it is not possible under these clauses for drastic powers to be employed which ought to be utilized only in a state of emergency, but which now can be utilized when the country officially is in a state of peace and when there is no state of emergency.

In regard to this particular Clause 18, this question of detention, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question by way of giving a practical example: Will it not be possible under certain circumstances, when perhaps reports come in that some strike or a bus boycott is contemplated, under Section 18 to give an order shall we say, for all the citizens and all the occupants of a place like Langa to stay there? It seems to me that that could be done under Clause 18. Now the hon. Minister tells us that he is going to limit this power to four days. Mr. Speaker, if you are going suddenly to order the citizens of Langa, or any particular class of citizen there or anywhere else, to remain in an area for four days, then that is a very serious thing indeed. But here you have the principle that in a time of peace (because it is during opera tions for the prevention …) such a step can be taken. Let us take a hypothetical case The hon. the Minister gets reports of a threatening bus boycott, and he says “No, this is going to lead to trouble, it is an operation now for the prevention of trouble, and under this section I have the power to order those people to remain in Langa for four days”.

Now let us come to another aspect. Why did the hon. the Minister use the word “con centration”? Does the hon. Minister not know that the word “concentration” has a terribly unfortunate connotation?

Give me another word.

There are plenty of other words. But in any case, what is meant by it? You see, under this section, let us assume that there is a disturbance, there are riots going on, and there is a march on Parliament. Now people start congregating around Parliament and they fill Parliament Street. Then obviously the Defence Force can’t operate, it is being hampered in its work. Now if there is a state of emergency, I can well understand that if the Defence Force wants to clear Parliament Street, it should have the right to do so. But it is a very different thing if the hon. Minister or someone is going, by any means he likes, perhaps through a loudspeaker, to order that all the people of a particular class in that street must concentrate in the Cathedral, or concentrate in the Public Gardens. He may announce: “Will all Coloured people, or will all Natives, or will all White people in Parliament Street concentrate in a certain area!” It may sound fantastic, but it is possible, and that is the point I make, and the people concerned may have to stay there for four days. It seems to me that this Bill has not been properly thought out. There are only two interpretations: Either the Bill has not been properly thought out and the hon. the Minister is taking very drastic powers which were not properly contemplated and anticipated; or else we have to assume another consideration, that these powers were contemplated, the possibility of such action was thought of, and is intended under certain circumstances. Those are the two possibilities. And as I say, Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned, as an Opposition here, we say that the risks are far too great for South Africa to take, and under these circumstances we will certainly vote against the second reading of this Bill. I want to say that I hope that for the sake of the Government and for the good repute of the hon. the Minister, he will drastically amend these clauses in the Committee Stage so as to remove all the implications from the Bill which we see in it, and which we are now opposing.

The hon. the Minister explained the Bill to the House very clearly. It is necessary to make these amendments to the Act at the moment. The leader of the defence group of the United Party also acted wisely in not dragging politics into the matter. We should not drag politics into the defence of our fatherland, and I am glad that hon. members did not do so. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) spoke in that spirit. There are a few minor matters with which he is not completely satisfied, but he and the United Party agree that these amendments are necessary. I can give the House the assurance that in the existing world conditions any state, big or small, must put its house in order. That is the object of these amendments. We must be prepared for any emergency and we do not want to take dictatorial powers. We did, however, have them in the past. I just want to tell the House that I was stationed in Johannesburg on that day in 1913 when we called in the imperial troops from Potchefstroom, and I still remember what happened in Johannesburg. They drew their swords and cleaned up the streets. I do not know how many people were injured. I also remember what happened in Potchefstroom 1914. I was stationed there then, and 1,700 of our young boys were called up to go to Johannesburg immediately. You see, General Smuts did not play. If there was trouble, he immediately suppressed it, whether he acted legally or not. Order must be maintained. But this Government does not do that sort of thing. It wants to act legally and it is preparing itself in case trouble arises. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is an advocate of long standing, and he had much to say here about one matter, because he is an ex-Minister and he is clever in those matters, and what he said in connection with their standpoint and the amendment moved by the Progressive Party, and also the speech of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope), was really something in which the ordinary man was not interested, still less this House. We feel that these amendments are necessary and the official Opposition approves of them. I hope that hon. members who sit here will also maintain law and order and that in time of trouble they will stand by us. I just want to remind hon. members that when we had the trouble in Langa and Sharpeville very few of the members of the Progressive Party ever said anything to repudiate what had been said there. I do not say that they agreed with it. They are honourable people, but if one keeps silent in such difficult times there is something wrong. There is turmoil which we do not understand. The communist turmoil we have here is sinister. I just want to tell hon. members that when the anti-communist legislation was put on the Statute Book, which was to have come into operation on the Monday, on the Sunday afternoon prior to that Monday I and my wife went by car to the square in front of the City Hall where Queen Victoria’s monument stands. We stopped there under a tree and there were a number of other motor cars also. Then a crowd of about 2,000 people, led by Sam Kahn and Carneson and a number of other leaders, came marching down Plein Street, and they had with them a large red flag, the Russian flag with the hammer and sickle. They went up to the monument and placed this nice flag with the hammer and sickle in front of the monument, and then Sam Kahn told the crowd—

Then he held his hand before his mouth. You know, Sir, one has to give a demonstration to Natives so that they can follow one. He said further—

That was his last speech on that Sunday afternoon, and not one of the hon. members sitting opposite at that time said a word about it. They opposed us day and night in this House in regard to that legislation, as they have done in connection with all other legislation which they then later accept. This Bill is necessary and the amendment moved by the Progressive Party is just a waste of time. Mr. Speaker, there was a breath of gossip here. They tell me that there is a minor election in the offing and therefore they must now demonstrate, just as Sam Kahn demonstrated that day before those 2,000 people. Who is who now? Who will take that seat? Who is now the favourite? I can understand it. We are diplomatic and we are watching to see who will win that election. We on this side only look to the interests of South Africa. I remember the time when we said South Africa first. Now we all say it, and the object of this Bill is to organize to keep South Africa first. And let me tell hon. members to-day as one who took part in all those riots and know what happened, that this measure is necessary. I remember what happened at Marshall Square when seven people were deported. Then General Smust and General Botha stood there, and General Botha told General Smuts: “Jannie, you must now tell them that I am no longer going to argue with them but that I am going to deport them now.” And he deported them and gave instructions to shoot. I was there and I was one of those who conveyed this order. We must preserve and maintain good order in South Africa. We on this side of the House are peace-loving people, and it seems to me that the hon. members opposite are now also becoming peace-loving. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) is the only one who still kicks up some dust, but we just allow him to carry on. The other hon. members now agree with this Bill. I know Natal, and in time of trouble Natal will stand by us 100 per cent to preserve peace and order. I am one of those unfortunate people who call a spade a spade. I cannot say that a thing is black when it is white. I have been sitting here all these years and when I listen to these arguments I am convinced that some hon. members are not sincere. That is something I cannot do for political purposes. I simply feel that we should not waste the time of the House. We must have an Opposition, and a good and constructive Opposition, but the way in which the Progressive Party is now acting is not constructive. We know the record of those hon. members very well. They are not like the north wind, but like a whirlwind. They do not know where they are. I want to ask hon. members no longer to waste time on this Bill. Let us pass it, because it is necessary to do so. We do not know what will happen to-morrow. To-day we have the cold war, and we might perhaps have a hot war, but we should be prepared.

I would like to address a few remarks to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), but before I do so, I should like to raise one or two points with the hon. the Minister as to the possible implications of certain of the clauses of the Bill. In respect of Clause 4, I would be glad if the hon. the Minister could clarify the position there in regard to the compulsory extension to members of the Citizen Force, who in times of internal disorder would be compelled to stay a further period of four days over the period of training for which at that time they may be serving. As the hon. Minister knows, employers have certain obligations to men serving their time in the Citizen Force. Has consideration been given to the possible effects, where a man is compelled, when his employer expects him back at the end of a period of training for which he has been called up, to serve a further four days under this clause—has the Minister considered the possible effect of this clause on the remuneration of such a man? Will the same obligation rest upon an employer as rests upon him when a man is called up to do his ordinary period of training in the ordinary course of events?

Then may I say to the hon. the Minister that I personally welcome very much the provision of Clause 7 where officers who have been placed on the retired list may again enjoy the status which they formerly enjoyed under the old 1912 Act. I am quite sure this is welcomed and the inclusion of this provision, which I think the hon. the Minister will agree was left out as a result of an oversight when the Act was amended in 1957, will meet with general approval. All the officers on the retired list will welcome it.

But I cannot resist the temptation to refer to one other aspect, because it is very nice to see an amendment included in the Bill in respect of which you put up a very hard battle at the time the original Act was passed.

I suppose that is only human.

Yes, Sir, but it is gladdening to the heart if the Government sees the wisdom of the Opposition’s arguments. One welcomes Clause 20 to the effect that members of the Commandos are made subject to the same conditions as members of the Citizen Force and are brought under the same military code. I hope the hon. the Minister will not take it amiss if I quote certain words to him which appear in Col. 1841 of Vol. 93 (Hansard) because when we fought that issue at that time, we urged that if the Commandos are made part of the South African Army and you give them the status of fighting men, then they must be subject to the same provisions as any other arm of the forces, and this is what we were told …

They have now had time to get used to it.

I think I can be forgiven if I quote the words which were used at that time, the reasons which were given for the non-inclusion of the Commandos under the disciplinary measures which applied to the rest of the force—

But under Clause 20 the Commandos, be they volunteers or those who are escapees from the ballot system, and who are brought into the Commando system, can be now punished if they fail to carry out orders in the forces in which they are serving. I am glad that the hon. Minister entirely disagrees from the words I have quoted. At the time the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) had some very harsh words to say about me, and the words I have quoted were used by the hon. Minister’s predecessor. But I am happy to see this amendment and the Commandos as a whole welcome it.

But there is another question that arises from the inclusion of this clause in regard to which I hope the hon. the Minister can give us some clarification, because by bringing the Commandos now under the same disciplinary code and making them subject to the same penalties as in the other arms of the forces, it raises the whole question of what is the position of the Commandos. There have been announcements from time to time of a reorganization of the Commando system, the possible reduction of the number of volunteers, the possible bringing in of more escapees from the ballot system to give them a period of service in the Commando system, and I think that this perhaps offers the Minister the opportunity—I know I cannot go too far into the matter under this Bill—to make a preliminary statement so that we consider the matter and discuss it further when we come to the hon. the Minister’s vote.

I envisage no change in the Commandos in the near future.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this clause clearly indicates that there will be stricter discipline in the Commando system, and if that is so and the clause is going to be applied, then the whole constitution of the Commando system as it is at present must come under consideration, and possibly if the hon. Minister has not got it in mind, I may be giving him the idea now.

There is the other aspect of the Bill which I want to deal with more fully, namely the implications of Clauses 12, 13 and 14, which include the new sub-sections 92bis and 92ter. As the hon. Minister has explained the object of these new sub-sections, as is apparent, is to make manpower more readily available in time of war, or for the suppression of internal disorders. But, and this is the important point, the Minister draws a clear distinction in 92ter between mobilization and the call-up of men, in the first instance in time of war for the defence of our country and in the second instance in time of suppression of internal disorder. Now both these two provisions apply to the Permanent Force, the Reserve, the Commandos and the Citizen Force, and it is clear that the Minister is drawing a distinction here in the call-up between the Citizen Force in time of war when all the forces will be called up under a general mobilization order and in other circumstances. It says that the Minister may now be empowered by the Governor-General to mobilize any section of the forces, or forces in any particular area, or forces in any particular city, or any particular units. If that is so, then I want to point out that the hon. the Minister in his speech emphasized this aspect that order in our country, if you use any of our defence forces in time of disorder, can best be maintained “with well-trained and disciplined soldiers, strictly controlled and subject to military discipline”. It means in fact then that if the Minister wants to extend this period of four days, in the event of any period of internal disorder and that he wishes not only to be able to use the Permanent Force, but to use sections of the Citizen Force, and the Minister is empowered to use men serving in the gymnasiums, men who are doing three weeks’ military camp, Commandos who are doing a week in bivouac, or men who are entered for their first period of two months’ continuous training. Does the hon. the Minister consider that if he has to mobilize any section of those forces, he is mobilizing well-trained, well-officered men who can be used for the more difficult task of suppressing internal disorders—because that is the time when the greatest tact is needed by the military authorities? Would he classify those men as falling into the category of “best trained and disciplined soldiers, strictly controlled”?

The best men at our disposal.

What is at the Minister’s disposal at any time? The only thing at the disposal of the Minister for these purposes at any time are the men who may have done three months in a military gymnasium, or three months in the naval gymnasium at Saldanha Bay, if he wants to use them at that period, or men who have done one month at Potchefstroom.

Why not?

Well, there we have the military expert in that corner, and I ask him to argue the case for the Minister. The point at issue is that you can hardly, by the wildest stretch of imagination, describe those men as “best trained and well-disciplined soldiers”. Because they are only rookies.

Will the hon. member be satisfied if we will be able to train them better in future?

I am coming to that point. In fact, the only well-trained troops that are immediately available for any crisis period are the permanent troops. They would have to be supplemented by members of the Citizen Forces or Commando Units. But the hon. the Minister knows that he recently called out some Commando Units and experienced a lot of trouble. However I am not going into this Pondoland business. He looks upon this as a means of getting over the difficulty. This is only a stopgap provision and it can never really be effective. What the Minister is seeking here is four days in which to mobilize a man in his particular unit. If he is completing his three weeks’ training he may have done two weeks and six days and have one day left to serve and the Minister can then compel him to stay another four days during which time he issues the mobilization order for that unit. But that does not overcome the basic need of having the best trained and disciplined men for the maintenance of law and the suppression of internal disorder. Those troops have to have the highest degree of training for the operations in which they may have to participate.

So far I am fully in agreement with you.

Then I hope the hon. the Minister will go one step further. Has the time not arrived when we have to reconsider this whole question of staggered periods of training? If the Minister wants these well-trained men we shall have to adopt the principle followed in most of the Commonwealth countries, and even by a small country like New Zealand, where a man is trained for a particular period and finishes his military training in one smack. They then always have satisfactorily trained units of men available to them for six, seven, eight or nine months as the case may be.

Order! That is beyond the scope of the Bill.

Yes, I know I cannot go further, Mr. Speaker.

I have allowed the hon. member to go too far as it is.

I have strictly confined myself to the provisions and to the Minister’s statement. May I conclude this point by saying that the time has probably come when the whole matter should be reconsidered?

I now want to deal with the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and the points he made in respect of Clauses 16, 17 and 18. The hon. member was at great pains for a considerable period of time to argue the merits of the amendment which he has moved to this Bill. Let me say I am extremely surprised. I view this amendment as a sort of devious political trick to make capital with an eye to the by-election that is taking place in Green Point in a day or two’s time.

Order, order! The hon. member cannot use the words “devious” or “political trick”.

I withdraw those expressions, Mr. Speaker.

What you happen to be saying is completely untrue. It is the attitude we have taken for a very considerable time.

The hon. member forgets that he sat in these benches when the Defence Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1957. If one has to test the sincerity of the motives for the bringing of this amendment …

We had not had a statutory state of emergency in 1957.

… we surely have to test it against the background of the hon. member’s observations during the debates on this Act in 1957. We are dealing with a particular amendment which the hon. member purports to have moved on behalf of the Progressive Party. He says this amendment supplies the fundamental objections as to why they cannot support this Bill. But what is new in the Bill as compared with what the hon. member for Salt River voted for in 1957? The amendment says—

The hon. member is an eminent lawyer. But I think the hon. member should study the Act before producing arguments such as he did to-day against Clauses 16, 17 and 18. If he will look at Section 103 of the Act and if he will read Hansard of that time, he will find that this side of the House sought and placed in the Bill the necessary safeguards which he is seeking to-day. Section 103 of the Act specifically provides that in time of war any regulations made by the Minister on behalf of the Governor-General for conducting that war in terms of Section 100—where you find all these violent and wild powers that the hon. member speaks about— shall be laid upon the Table of this House. The Governor-General is empowered to take possession of buildings, premises, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, machinery, equipment, animals, foodstuffs, forage, fuel, oils, etc. That is in the Act and the Section 103 provides that those regulations must be placed on the Table of this House so as to be subject to the approval of this Parliament. Can there be a greater safeguard? And if my memory serves me correctly it was the hon. member for Salt River who was one of the persons consulted in regard to the insertion of this provision which gives the safeguard. The hon. member is well aware of these facts. Why does he bring this amendment to-day? What is the motive behind it? This amendment contains absolutely nothing that does not exist in the present Act. Yet we have had this story of wild powers of the Minister, of dictatorships and all the rest of it in terms of this Bill. A good speech for the Press, but not one for this House. The only motive behind this amendment is that the hon. member for Salt River will be able to rise on the platforms at Green Point and say “Look at the United Party, they have voted for the Government again”.

Order, order! That is not in this Bill.

Let us take it further and test the sincerity of the amendment. I do not want to weigh my legal knowledge against the hon. member for Salt River or the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope). But surely if words have any meaning at all, Section 103 states very clearly—and this is the section being amended by Clause 16—

I read that out.

But you supported it in 1957. Surely the amendment the hon. the Minister has introduced gives a narrower definition of internal disorder? All the powers that the hon. member for Salt River fears the hon. the Minister has already got in the original Act. There is nothing new, and if anything the wording that is now being introduced gives a narrower definition of internal disorder. We are dealing with a Defence Bill concerned with military operations and the wording is quite clear. I delete these words “internal disorder” which could be given the widest possible interpretation, and narrows them down to meaning “during operations for the suppression of internal disorders in the Union”. In other words, the powers conferred on the Governor-General in the original Act can only now be taken if the military forces are engaged in operations where they have to take possession of buildings, aircraft, vehicles, etc.

When one analyses the arguments of the hon. member in respect of Clauses 17 and 18 one has to weigh up the sincerity of the amendment. It is quite clear that it is nothing but a political manoeuvre on the part of the hon. member in an attempt to make political capital for his party in view of the by-election which is pending in Green Point.

In respect of Clause 18 and the wide powers that the military authorities will be able to take in time of internal disorder or in time of war, I should like the Minister to give consideration to the possible application of the same restrictive provisions as apply to Section 103. We are amending Section 103 by Clause 18 of the Bill which adds a new Section 103bis. I ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the inclusion, after the words “in time of war” of the words “during operations for the suppression of internal disorder”. I think that that would meet the situation and provide the safeguards that this side of the House feels are necessary in respect of those powers. That would apply the principle which we have previously in the Bill so that any powers or regulations or steps taken by the Governor-General in time of war would be subject to the will of this House, as well as in time of internal disorder or operations for the suppression of internal disorder. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would give that suggestion his consideration.

Mr. Speaker. I must say that I am pleased that the hon. the Minister gave the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) a little joy this afternoon in the cheerless position in which hon. members on the other side find themselves. I am pleased that the hon. member derives a little joy from this debate this afternoon. I think in referring to the clause which deals with the possibility of laying one’s hands on those people who are undergoing training in camps or gymnasiums he rather overlooks the value of those people at such a time. I think in a state of emergency these people on whom we can lay our hands immediately would be a very fine addition to the Permanent Force. I am glad therefore that this Bill contains the provision that people who are undergoing training will become available immediately. The gymnasiums would immediately give us 2,000 additional members, and at a time like that there may also be many others undergoing training in other camps. It means that in the case of a state of emergency the Minister could immediately use those people.

In regard to the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope), I just want to say that it is a pity, at a time when we are making preparations for the safety of this country, something which is in the interests not only of this country but in the interests of the Western world, that there are some people who are unable to rise above petty political advantage. The hon. member says that this Government is responsible for the fact that South Africa has become “a happy hunting-ground for communists”. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. member, when he looks at Africa, does not see the signs there, and I wonder which governments he holds responsible for that situation. The fact of the matter is that we are living in times of cold war and we must make provision for that. Much greater military experts than the hon. member over there have stated that in a future war it may well be that one of the most important services that South Africa could render, not only within our own country, but within Africa, would perhaps be to provide police services. We are also preparing ourselves to make our contribution by means of an expeditionary force. Let me add that when one looks at Africa, it is clear that lines of communication must be kept open, which makes police services in the next war a matter of the utmost importance. We must also look at the industrial potential that must be available to the Western world, and there too it is clear that police services will be of very great importance.

I want to come back to the remarks of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) to the effect that the Minister has very wide powers to commandeer things and to move people. That is the argument that he advanced on the clause which provides that people may be removed to certain places. I said by way of interjection at the time that the Minister had that power for four days. I want to try to explain it because I hope I am right in my interpretation of the law. This relates to the new Section 103bis which reads that—

I want to emphasize these words, because the Minister cannot do this at any time; he may only do certain things in war-time or during operations for the prevention or suppression of internal disorders. Let us look now at Section 92 of the Act, as it is now being amended, and let us look at the new subsection (2) as well as the old sub-section (2). The existing sub-section (2) of Section 92 read—

And then it ends as follows—

Well, the new sub-section (2) which is being substituted for that sub-section reads very much the same—

Perhaps I should put it more clearly—

And then it reads—

That is to say, the Governor-General may do those things before issuing the proclamation. Then the concluding words are—

That deals with mobilization.

Those are the provisions in connection with operations in the event of an emergency. To what other operations could it refer when it says that “the Minister may act in time of war or for the prevention of internal disorders”?

That relates to mobilization.

If the Minister takes action with a view to mobilization, or as described in this clause, then the Governor-General must issue a proclamation within four days. He must have the power to be able to act. He cannot act for longer than four days. I say therefore that when we read these subsections together, we find that the Minister cannot for longer than four days exercise those powers to which they object, unless a proclamation is issued by the Governor-General.

That does not follow unless an amendment is made.

I am very pleased that this Bill makes it possible for our forces to be called up much more quickly than in the past; they can now be called up over the radio and through the Press, etc. I welcome this provision. I have stated already that we are living in times of cold war, but we are also living in the atomic warfare age. There are experts who contend that the next war may be over within two or three weeks. I say therefore that it is in the interests of the country if we can mobilize our forces more quickly, in the case also of disorders which may erupt very quickly, and for that reason we welcome this provision in the Bill.

I also welcome the provision that it will be possible to call up our forces in anticipation of trouble. It is essential sometimes to act timeously in order to be able to check disturbances. A display of strength, particularly in the case of disorders, is sometimes the very thing that is called for to check the disturbances. Once the forces have been called up, such a display of strength is sometimes sufficient to cause the disorders to collapse.

I want to refer now to the objections of hon. members on the other side to two provisions of this Bill, namely that the State can be held liable for compensation only in cases of deliberate neglect of duty or negligence on the part of officers in performing certain acts. In the case of the protection of camps, of sites, buildings, etc., I feel that if we are going to curtail an officer’s powers it may perhaps result in great damage. An officer should be able to accept the responsibility of putting up those notices without first having to go to the Commandant-General or to Head Office. We must let him feel that he will not be penalized if he acts. I feel therefore that this provision with regard to deliberate neglect is an important insertion in this Bill. I feel that we should retain it, because if an officer has to act and he feels that he is not properly protected in the event of some person suffering injury or damage, I am afraid it will restrain him from acting expeditiously or acting with the necessary initiative to protect and to safeguard the State’s property in connection with our defence. Generally speaking therefore I say that we can welcome this Bill and we are very happy about the innovations which have been incorporated here.

Mr. Speaker, I do not usually talk about defence, but we had a very interesting spectacle (“toneeltjie”) here this afternoon which attracted my attention.

Order! The hon. member must not discuss the “toneeltjie”; he must talk about the Bill.

I want to talk about this question of “prevention”—preventive operations. I must say that like the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) I am a little perturbed about the insertion of these words here. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister why the clause has to be worded in this way. It is clear to me that as soon as we insert that word, it is not sufficient to use the words “in war-time or during a state of emergency” and that it becomes necessary to add the words “during operations for the prevention of disorders and internal troubles”

…

But assuming we suddenly had some trouble this afternoon, then it would be a state of emergency.

If anything of that kind were to happen, as the hon. the Minister now suggests, I am afraid he would no longer be able to prevent it because it would then be an accomplished fact. The only obvious course available to him then would be to declare a state of emergency, which he would be able to do. We have no objection to giving him the necessary powers for that purpose. But what is the meaning of “operations for the prevention of”? The phrase is so extremely wide that if one interprets it in an unbiased way it actually means that action is going to be taken, while there is still peace, while there is still no state of emergency, as though there is in fact a state of emergency. In spirit and in actual fact you would act as though there was already a state of emergency. I do not believe that this type of wording in an Act is going to do South Africa’s name any good abroad or anywhere else. I should like to see these terms clearly defined or deleted preferably. It is such an easy matter to-day to have a state of emergency declared when trouble of this kind actually occurs or is about to occur that the hon. the Minister need not insert terms of this kind in a Bill.

My hon. friends on my right have been caught on the wrong foot unfortunately. They did not realize the implication of this, and now that it has been brought to their notice, they have to extinguish the flames. And where do they extinguish the flames? Do they do so in the interests of South Africa? Oh no! They try to extinguish the flames not on Table Mountain where it is sometimes necessary, but at Green Point.

The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Green Pointers, if they had been here to-day and had witnessed this struggle impartially, would have known for whom and against whom they ought to vote. I do not like to see terms of this kind used in an Act because they practically enable one to make use of powers which should only be exercised in a state of emergency or under wartime conditions. In actual fact, the Minister, is using these terms, is practically declaring a permanent state of emergency in South Africa. Anybody who reasonably analysed this would immediately say to himself: “Well, the hon. the Minister of Defence will now be able at any time to concentrate people in a building or in an area, or to chase them out of an area and he can do this under the pretext that his intention is to prevent disorders or internal trouble.” He is acting as though there is already a state of emergency. We have to admit that there is a permanent state of emergency in South Africa, and if the Minister makes that allegation, then we can argue about it.

Where in this whole measure do you read anything about a state of emergency?

I am reading the clause as it stands here. It reads that the Minister may “in time of war or for the prevention or suppression of internal disorders” act in such and such a way. What it actually means is that he may at any time subject South Africa now to military operations as though there is a state of emergency. Here he is taking powers which are just as great and unlimited as those actually taken in a state of emergency. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is not going to do us any good. The Minister should either define these words so that we can know what he actually means, or he should rather delete them. He can then make up his mind upon the proclamation of a state of emergency, if that is necessary. After all, the Minister cannot tell me that it takes days and weeks to declare a state of emergency. That is something that can be done practically immediately through action on the part of the Government or the Governor-General. Why insert words of this kind here just to get South Africa into further trouble in the eyes of the world?

Mr. Speaker, I think the whole House appreciates the attitude which is being adopted here this afternoon by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) on behalf of the official Opposition. We have no quarrel with the hon. member when he says that there ought to be no politics in our Defence Force. We fully agree with him. We do not want to dwell at length on what the hon. member said except to say this, that one must express one’s disappointment over the fact that after having read in the Cape Times this morning what attitude the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) was going to adopt here this afternoon, he anticipated what the hon. member was going to say and also took exception to Clause 18 which allegedly gives the Minister more powers than the hon. member would like to see. No, it is clear to all of us that under the present circumstances and for the purpose for which the Act is being amended, the Minister must take the powers which he is taking under Clause 18. I believe that the hon. member for Simonstown would not have objected to this if it had not been for the fact that he too had at the back of his mind the scene which is now being enacted in Green Point.

Order! That is not relevant.

I refer just in passing to the attitude of the Opposition with regard to Clause 18. As to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) I just want to say that we found it quite useful to see in the newspaper what course he was going to follow in connection with his objections to this Bill. The most serious objection of the hon. member for Salt River was not to the fact that the Minister was providing for certain indemnities which he believes to be beyond his powers; the hon. member’s objection is that this amendment of the Act is specifically designed to improve our internal defence. Here I also want to refer to the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) whose strong point was this: He wanted to know what was the task and the function of our Defence Force, whether it was external defence or internal security. The hon. members for Parktown and Salt River tried to make the point that our Defence Force was now being converted because internal security, according to them, was the main duty of the force to-day. I think it is clear to all of us, and also to the Defence Force, that the role of the force is to defend South Africa in every respect, whether externally or internally, and also as far as internal disturbances are concerned. I feel therefore that it is not reasonable on the part of hon. members to raise these strenuous objections to the fact that the Act is being improved so as to give the Minister powers to ensure internal order in the interests of the safety of the Union.

Then I just want to refer to one of the observations made by the hon. member for Parktown when he stated that the Defence Force as such hated suppressing internal disorders. I think the Defence Force in any case hates taking part in any operation in which blood may be shed, but as I know the force it will, when called upon to do so, fulfil every duty resting upon it, even if it is distasteful, and be loyal to this country.

I do not propose to deal with the objects of the Progressive Party in moving their amendment. I hope they will realize that these amendments by means of which we seek to bring about internal security are not aimed at specific groups or races. If it so happens that steps have to be taken against a certain race or group it will be an unfortunate position. But I think the public also expects the necessary powers to be taken to enable action to be taken against any group which seeks to bring about internal disorder.

In connection with the observations made here by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), I think he has no cause to rejoice over the fact that some of the specific amendments that were proposed by the Opposition in 1957 are allegedly being accepted here. I think if the hon. member studies the Act and looks again at the amendments that they proposed in 1957, he will notice that the amendment which is being accepted here in connection with Clause 75 is entirely different from the amendment which he supported so strenuously when he moved an amendment on Clause 29 in 1957, in terms of which they wanted to make the Commandos a completely compulsory organization, like the Active Citizen Force—a step which would have destroyed the Commando system, because as a voluntary organization it would then simply have ceased to exist. This specific amendment with which we are dealing this afternoon, concerns those members of the Commandos who, because they were not balloted for training in the Active Citizen Force, can now be obliged to serve with the Commandos instead of with the Citizen Force. I think if the hon. member again reads the amendment he will find that he has very little cause for rejoicing. We welcome the support that we are getting from the Opposition and we hope we shall also get their support to improve our Defence Force so that it will be prepared not only for external defence but also for internal security and we hope we shall also get the support of the Progressive Party.

Mr. Speaker, I agree 100 per cent with the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) and the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. Strydom) when they say that we must keep politics entirely out of the Defence Force. I have said the same thing in this House on previous occasions. I think it is a pity therefore that the hon. member who has just sat down could not resist the temptation to introduce a little politics. As far as hon. members on our left are concerned, I just want to say that it is deplorable that they are using this House, where they do not represent anybody but themselves, to make political propaganda.

But I do not propose to say much about them. I want to point out, however, that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), when he dealt with Clause 5, continually used the term “in case of emergency”. Sir, when lawyers start arguing about the law, they reach the position later on where nobody agrees with anybody else. I do not want to argue with the hon. member for Salt River, but as I see the position, we are not dealing here with an “emergency”. The clause very clearly states “in case of emergency The position is put even more clearly in the Afrikaans version. It does not talk about a “noodtoestand” (state of emergency) but of “in ’n tyd van nood”. When a patient has to be brought to a hospital in an emergency or when army worms have to be combated, it is an emergency but it is not a state of emergency. That is how I read it.

I do not want to waste much time on the members on my left, but the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) says that the Minister now wants to use the Defence Force solely to help the police. But that has always been the position in this country. The Defence Force has always been there to assist the police when the position becomes uncontrollable. That is also the position in other countries like England and America, and I cannot see what objection there can be to it. Whenever there are strikes overseas, the troops are called out to distribute perishable products. I do not think we need say much with regard to that argument.

Hon. members who have spoken before me have dealt with these amendments thoroughly and there is not much more for me to say. These amendments, it seems to me, are of such a nature that they are going to simplify and greatly facilitate administration for the Defence Force in times of peace and in times of emergency, but, what is more important, they are going to expedite matters very much, and speed is of the utmost importance to-day. The methods that we used 50 years ago to bring our Defence Force into action, or even ten years ago, are out of date to-day. Since this amendment is going to expedite matters, we have no alternative but to give it our wholehearted support.

It is quite clear too that the Minister has made use of the experience which he and his officers gained during the last state of emergency in order to incorporate into this Act those provisions which are necessary if we should ever have such a state of emergency again, which we all hope will not be the case.

The fact that in the future we shall be able, as soon as it becomes necessary, to make use of people who are undergoing training is going to relieve the pressure on our small Permanent Force very greatly.

Our Permanent Force is not big, and when the Defence Force is called out they have to withstand the first shock. This will greatly assist the Permanent Force. As previous speakers have already said, it is gratifying to see that the Commandos are now being brought into the Defence Force on a proper basis to take their place alongside the Citizen Force and the Permanent Force and that the conditions of service and duties are being defined. The training of the Commandos unfortunately is of a very limited nature and, moreover, they lack funds, which inevitably means that difficulties arise when the Commandos have to take their place alongside the trained Citizen Force and the Permanent Force. Many members of the Commandos do not realize the nature and the seriousness of their duties; they do not appreciate the nature of the discipline under which they have to serve. That is so in the nature of things. I would like to ask the Minister, if this is possible, to give more training and discipline to those members of the Commandos in the limited time at their disposal. That would eliminate many of the difficulties experienced in the past.

The ballotees who are seconded to them will, of course, set a fine example, and so will the members of the Brandwag platoons. We will now have two elements within the Commandos that will be of assistance.

I am pleased to hear that. That is a step in the right direction.

We have heard a great deal here about indemnifying the State. From the point of view of the person who has to handle the military manoeuvres or who has to suppress disorders, this will be of very great assistance, of course. He wants to get on with the job, and he does not want to be bound. But in spite of what the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) has said, our attitude has always been as set out by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). I understand the hon. member for Simonstown does not even read the Cape Times. I say this because the hon. member for Somerset East says that the hon. member for Simonstown is making use of what he read in the Cape Times this morning.

I suppose he reads the Burger.

This indemnity is definitely very drastic, and in the Committee Stage we shall set out our misgivings in that regard. In the meantime it will be very interesting to hear from our lawyers to what extent this provision is perhaps in conflict with our common law. But from the practical point of view, I think this indemnity is necessary for the exercise of these powers, and as far as we on this side are concerned we support the second reading of the Bill.

Some members of the House have not understood why the Progressive Party is opposing this Bill. It was said from the benches opposite that we were making a fuss about nothing. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has suggested that we are opposing this Bill to gain some political advantage, but may I say that that is quite untrue. The attitude of this party has been taken up because we are jealous of the rights of individuals and we see no reason why a Minister should be given wide powers if they are not both necessary and desirable. In time of war and of true emergency, we fully agree that the Government must be able to maintain order, but here we are dealing with powers which are to be exercised outside a state of emergency, and for those circumstances we believe that the powers the Minister wishes to take are too wide. It may well be that the Minister has no intention whatever of using the powers to the extent to which they can be used, but nevertheless Parliament must be jealous in giving powers which are wider than the object for which they are necessary.

May I refer to Clauses 16, 17 and 18 once again. Clause 16 refers to Section 100 of the Act, which states that in time of war or internal disorder the Governor-General may authorize and appoint officers of the Defence Force to do certain things, and it enumerates the powers of commandeering. It is true that the section in its present form already includes internal disorder, but that term is unfortunately not defined and we are uncertain as to its precise meaning. It may well be interpreted as meaning only internal disorder where a state of emergency has been declared, or it may be wider, but whatever its precise meaning the present expression used in the amending Bill clearly goes further than that because it uses the term “during operations for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder”. Therefore, whereas in terms of the existing Act the internal disorder must exist before the Governor-General may commandeer ships, vehicles, aircraft, etc., in terms of the amendment, the Minister will be enabled to do so during operations for the prevention of a disorder which has not yet started. He may therefore take powers in anticipation, and he is the only judge of whether internal disorder is likely to break out. So it clearly is a widening of the power.

Clause 17 relates to Section 102 of the Act. Here the power given to the Governor-General is limited to time of war in the existing Act, which says that he may in time of war authorize any officer to assume control over any railway system or air service, etc., and the Minister may requisition the authorities controlling any railway line to supply rolling-stock for the conveyance of troops, etc. So the present position is that the Governor-General may in time of war only authorize the taking over of control of the railways. Now that power is to be extended. Not only is it to exist in time of war, and not only in times of internal disorder, which would already be an addition, but also in anticipation of internal disorder. It is clearly a substantial widening of the power. I want to ask the Minister why does he think that this power is necessary? Why should it be necessary in anticipation of internal disorder to take control of the railways? Surely if he feels that there is trouble pending, he only has to go to the Railway Department for assistance. Why must he be able to take over the railways and requisition rolling-stock? To us it: seems that this is a wide power and that no case has been made out for giving it in anticipation of disorder, or even during actual disorder which does not justify the declaration of a state of emergency. Here, too, it is a clear widening of the power, which we feel is unjustifiable.

Then we come to Clause 18, which adds a new Section 103bis and gives further powers not only in time of war but also during operations for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder. The way the clause is drafted makes it a very wide power indeed. He may require any person or class of persons to evacuate any area. The wording is extremely wide. Here again it may be that the Minister does not intend to use it to the extent to which it can be used. In fact, he has already indicated that he is prepared to limit it to some period such as four days. May I on this point reply to the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt), who believes that the Act at present limits it to four days, and he drew that inference from Section 92 of the Act as amended. But I believe he is quite wrong in believing that it is limited to four days. Section 92 does refer to four days in regard to mobilization. There is reference in this sub-section (2) of Section 92 to action which is taken by the Governor-General under other sections, but there is no close relation between the two, and the fact that this power now given in the new Clause 92 is limited to a period of four days does not mean that the power given in other sections is also limited to four days. But apart from that, the Minister has now said that he may introduce an amendment limiting the period during which this power can be exercised to four days. Sir, we cannot be satisfied with that kind of assurance, because the clause is still open to objection. A great deal can be done in four days, to which we object most strongly. There would be nothing to prevent the Minister from using it a second time after the four days had elapsed, and ad infinitum. We do not regard that kind of limitation as sufficient. There is no limit as to the area in which these powers are to be exercised. He may order people to evacuate any area. He might order the White people to evacuate the Transkei. The answer every time is that the Minister will not exercise it in this way, but why have a clause of this nature? If the Minister will define exactly what he wishes to do and introduces a clause which fits those circumstances, we will consider it seriously, but at present, because the clause is so wide, we cannot possibly give it our support in the second reading. The hon. member for Parktown has given an instance. Take the circumstances which actually existed during the statutory state of emergency last year when the Minister wanted to prevent people from leaving Nyanga and Langa and placed a cordon around them. That was under a declared state of emergency, but there is nothing in this section to prevent him from doing that without declaring a state of emergency. We believe it is unsatisfactory to give the Minister such power without declaring a state of emergency. This clause is wide enough to do it and to do many other things. If he wishes to banish a person from any town, he can do that under this clause, just as you have provisions in the Native Administration Act for banishing an African. He can take a Native from the Transkei and put him in Kimberley. Why should he take powers that are so wide? And he can do it to Europeans, not only Natives. He can banish a person to another part of the Union or order him to evacuate. We have said that the hon. the Minister does not wish to do this, but if that is so, why does he draft the clause in this form? Why does he not draft the clause in such a way that it limits him to exactly what he does wish to do? With due respect. Sir, we would like a statement from the Minister as to what exactly he intends. I have heard it suggested that one of the objects of this kind of power is that if there should be a march similar to the march which took place in Cape Town last year, he would like to clear the onlookers from the scene so that his forces can take appropriate action, if necessary. Well, I can understand that. I believe the existing law is probably wide enough to cover that situation. I think the police would probably be able to clear the onlookers from the scene. If not, and he feels some further powers are necessary, then we shall certainly seriously consider whether those powers should not be given in this Bill. But clearly a clause such as this would not be necessary to achieve that. Then again, the hon. the Minister talks here of a class of persons; he wants the right to evacuate a class of persons. What does the hon. the Minister intend should be done in removing a class of person; what circumstances has he in mind where it may be necessary to remove a class of person? For instance, in his example of clearing onlookers from an area in which he wants to conduct operations, it would be all persons in the particular area, not just a particular class. I could understand it if he wished to order all onlookers in a particular area to evacuate so that he could take action. But what circumstances does he envisage which require the distinction between different classes of persons? Here it says—

Will the Minister give us the kind of situation which he envisages as needing such drastic powers such as these?

To sum up, we are definitely not opposed to the Government having sufficient power in times of war or in times of real emergency. What we object to is the granting of powers which are fairly wide—in fact very wide— where a state of emergency has not been declared. At the present the powers are very much too wide, and we should like the hon. the Minister to tell us exactly in what circumstances he intends these powers to be exercised. Even if he does so we shall not be prepared to pass the Bill in this form. We object to Clauses 16, 17 and 18, but it may be that at a later stage, if the Minister should withdraw these clauses and put them in a different form, we shall be able to agree on some other wording which would meet the circumstances of the case. In its present form, we are forced to vote against the second reading.

I am very grateful for the support that I have received from the official Opposition in connection with the general trend of this Bill. Various speakers have made it clear that they would like certain changes to be brought about in the Committee Stage, but they supported the general trend of the Bill, and I am grateful for that support.

Hon. members of the Progressive Party did not support the general trend of this Bill. They object very strongly to the granting of further powers to the Government in Clauses 16, 17 and 18. They are very strongly opposed to the idea that the Government should have the right, in terms of Section 100 of the Act, to commandeer private individuals with a view to preventing disorder. They are also strongly opposed to the idea that in terms of Section 102 of the Act the Government should have the right to use its own railway vehicles for the prevention of disorders. They do not want to give the Government that right. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) wants us to define the words “during a declared state of emergency The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has already pointed out, quite correctly, that under Section 101, as it now reads, the Governor-General may in time of war or during internal disorders authorize officers, etc. to do certain things. That is in war-time or during internal disorders, but there is no definition here of “internal disorders”. It is not stated in the section as it now reads that these powers can be used during a declared state of emergency. Where is it stated? It is not stated here at all that these powers can be used during a declared state of emergency; it simply says here that these powers may be used in times of internal disorders. There too the Minister has to use his discretion in deciding whether there are in fact internal disturbances, and the only additional thing for which we are now asking is that he must have these powers in times of war or during operations for the prevention of disorders. I think virtually this clause is even narrower because here it is specifically stated “during operations for the prevention of disorders”. What hon. members are now asking me to do is to abandon powers that we already have under this legislation. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) stated very specifically that no amendment giving us these powers would satisfy them, except in times of a declared state of emergency. The hon. member said that perfectly clearly and I then asked him, “What is the use then of asking me to accept amendments?” His reply to that was that he had not yet finished his sentence but in fact that was the end of his sentence—that nothing on earth would satisfy him or his party unless we agreed to the proposition that we should only be given those powers during a declared state of emergency. But, Mr. Speaker, I have those powers or even greater powers to-day. Does the hon. member expect me to abandon an essential power, a power which everybody regarded as absolutely essential when the original legislation was passed in 1957? No, I am afraid I cannot understand these basic objections of my hon. friends. I am unable to accede to their request. I shall not be able to accept an amendment at a later stage that will completely neutralize the whole purpose of this legislation as it stood and as we now seek to improve it. If I accepted an amendment to that effect I would completely destroy the whole purpose of this clause, as it was incorporated in the Act originally and as we now seek to amend it. The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) has asked me what necessity there is for the right that we assume in Clause 18 to remove people from a certain area. Mr. Speaker, surely that is perfectly obvious? Experience has taught us repeatedly that when there are people in an area in which military operations have to be carried out, people who do not take part in those operations, they are in serious danger. Not only are they in serious danger but their presence also hinders the successful implementation of those operations. We are asking for this right here simply to put this matter beyond any doubt. The hon. member for East London (North) says that it is just possible that we may have that right under some law or other. As I have said, we are now asking for that right to be able to remove people to be placed beyond any doubt. Last year we had certain disturbances here. I am speaking subject to correction but I think these disturbances took place before the declaration of the state of emergency. We had disturbances on a large scale here and people congregated in the streets. If those disturbances had not been concluded in peace, if there had been any violence, if action had had to be taken, there could have been a great many casualties. These people were completely in the way there. Their presence in the street made it practically impossible to act and under those circumstances we must have the right to remove these people.

Why is the clause so widely framed?

I want to go further; let us be perfectly candid. Let us assume that disorders break out to-morrow morning or during the night in an area which is sparsely populated by Whites. Those people also have to be protected; it is our duty. But is it possible for the Government to protect people who live 20, 30 or 50 miles apart? It is impossible. Where disorders suddenly break out, we should be able to give those people instructions to assemble at certain points so that we can protect them. I can understand that hon. members are afraid that this Bill represents a new way of establishing concentration camps. Mr. Speaker, it is not our idea at all to do such a thing, and the hon. member for Salt River ought to know better than any other member in this House that a concentration camp that is established for just a few days in worthless; it must be established for a long period. After all, the hon. member has experience of that. I am prepared to accept an amendment on the following lines in the Committee Stage—

Then it cannot under any circumstances be a concentration camp.

Will you accept the word “assemble” instead of concentrate?

The hon. member for Simonstown has suggested that we should use the word “assemble” instead of “concentrate”. I also prefer the word “assemble” and that too we can rectify later on.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, and a division was called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. Butcher, Cope, Dr. de Beer, Mr. Eglin, Prof. Fourie, Mr. Lawrence, Dr. Steytler, Mrs. Suzman, Messrs, van Ryneveld and Williams) voted against the Question, Mr. Speaker declared it affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and the Bill read a second time.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 21 February.

I move—

The object of this Bill is to take another step along the road of the socio-economic upliftment of the Coloured people in traditional Coloured areas. The Preamble to the Bill, the Long Title, makes this quite clear and for the sake of clarity I want to read it out to the House—

I have read this out in order to remove any doubt which may exist, namely, that we are not dealing here with areas which have not been traditionally regarded as such.

In the second place, I want at the very outset to avail myself of this opportunity of explaining that measures such as these, which deal with the rural areas of the Coloured people, are not aimed at establishing so-called Colouredstans. But as a result of steps taken by the State, particularly during the previous century, donations and testamentary dispositions, certain areas and mission stations have been reserved for Coloureds. Some of these rural areas are situated in the North-Western Cape, but there are also some in the Western Cape, Eastern Cape, the Free State and other provinces. Until recently most of those areas have been lying there undeveloped. Living conditions in those little towns, such as housing, health conditions and farming methods, have deteriorated tremendously. Then the Government stepped in and exercised some control, especially under the Mission Stations and Communal Reserves Act of 1909, as amended in 1959, and the provisions of that Act were applied to some of the areas, but it was only since the establishment of the Department of Coloured Affairs that those areas have received special attention, although the provisions of the Mission Stations and Communal Reserves Act of 1909 were ineffective till 1959 when Parliament unanimously decided to amend that Act and thereafter development and progress were possible.

The following areas fall within the ambit of the 1909 legislation as subsequently amended: Genadendal (5,629 morgen), Enon (11,981 morgen), Mamre (7,390 morgen), Pniel (49 morgen), Zoar (6,868 morgen), Ebenezer (21,350 morgen), Concordia (74,000 morgen), Steinkopf (374,000 morgen), Kommaggas (73,000 morgen), Leliefontein (225,000 morgen), Richtersveld (600,000 morgen), Rietpoort (17,620 morgen) and Taba Patchoa (2,421). These areas are to-day being managed and developed under the Act of 1909 as amended in 1959.

A great deal has already been done, inter alia in respect of water conservation, fencing, the erection of inner camps, afforestation, and a start has also been made with the development of towns; they are trying to improve their stock and good results have been obtained particularly during the past two years, since the adoption of the amending Act. These areas also have their own management boards and under the supervision of Coloured superintendents the Department enjoys a great measure of co-operation from the Coloured communities. But a great deal can and must still be done to increase the carrying capacity of those areas, to stimulate the growth of the towns and thus satisfy the natural land hunger which exists among the Coloured people to a certain extent and also to open new avenues of employment for them. That, Sir, is more or less the background of this Bill. There are, however, a great number of those areas which do not as yet fall under the control of the Department, as far as the Mission Stations and Communal Reserves Act is concerned. I want to mention a few of those who are themselves aware of the hopeless position in which they are to-day. There are, for example, Saron, Dyselsdorp, Slangrivier and Kruisfontein, and a great many others but I am only mentioning these four because they have already expressed the desire to come under the provisions of the 1909 Act as amended, and to participate in the opportunities which that Act offers.

The object of this Bill is to empower the Minister, in so far as those areas which do not as yet fall under the provisions of the 1909 legislation, to take certain steps. I now want to deal briefly with the various provisions of the Bill itself. Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill deal with its application. In terms of those clauses provision is made for the establishment of management boards whose duties and powers will be similar to the town boards and who will qualify for Government assistance in terms of the amending Act No. 32 of 1959 in respect of developmental schemes. In order to restore and conserve the rural Coloured areas for occupation and possession by Coloureds the Governor-General may, if he considers it necessary in the public interest or on a written request by the majority of the legal owners or inhabitants of the area and after consultation, by proclamation in the Government Gazette, set aside for that purpose a defined rural area which has at any time been granted, transferred or set aside for occupation by Coloured persons or which is a locally recognized Coloured area, or which is mainly occupied or owned by Coloured persons.

Furthermore, the Governor-General may also, after consultation with the interested parties, de-proclaim an area or a portion of an area from the operations of the Act and incorporate that area in another area. The reason for this is that it may be necessary to do so for the sake of good administration or compensation. Clause 4 makes provision for the protection of existing Coloured rights. Clauses 6, 7 and 11 deal with compensation. Provision is made, amongst others, for proper arbitration. Clauses 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 lay down the procedure. It deals, inter alia, with the giving of proper notice and the gathering of the necessary information before taking action.

Mr. Speaker, everybody who is honest in his intentions towards the Coloured people in South Africa ought to welcome this measure. It creates an opportunity to place areas which have hitherto been in a state of deterioration because they did not enjoy the benefits which those other areas which I have mentioned enjoyed, on the same basis as the latter. There is no intention at the present juncture to embark on a scheme of large-scale extension of Coloured rural areas. Our main object is to develop these existing traditionally Coloured areas in such a way that their carrying capacity will be increased. But in order to do justice to them and for the sake of South Africa to which that land belongs, these 2,300,000-odd morgen of land must be developed in such a way that they will provide the present and future owners of that land with the best possible means of making a living. That is the whole object of this Bill.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When business was sus pended for dinner, the hon. Deputy Minister had just finished his speech on the second reading of this Bill. Sir, the hon. Minister took something like ten minutes to deliver his speech. Now I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that this is a very intricate Bill, not merely as simple as one might be led to believe, if one were simply to sit here without any knowledge of the Bill and listen to what the hon. the Minister had to say. I also want to say that it has been said, rightly or wrongly, that the hon. Deputy Minister, is making an honest effort to bring about a better understanding and better relations between the Coloured people and the White people in this country, and that he is building up a reputation for being fair and just—carrying out of course Nationalist Party policy—but building up that reputation, and I want to suggest to him that the place where he can be most fair to the Coloured people of South Africa is here in this debating Chamber; not outside, not in his office, not in dealing with other people, but here where he should come and explain what he has in mind in terms of this legislation, so that we in Parliament understand precisely what the hon. the Minister is aiming at and so that we can discuss this matter in the light of day, all cards on the table, and know precisely where we are going in regard to our relationship with the Coloured people. I don’t think that this is a matter where we want to play politics, and the Minister must agree with me. Because the Coloured people in the Cape have been placed on a separate role, put there as the hon. Minister’s side has said repeatedly, to take them away from being a football in the political life of the country, and those people in my own province who were not on the voters’ roll when the Separate Representation of Voters Bill was enacted, have no franchise at all, and you cannot play politics with them. They are disfranchised, they are worse off than the Bantu, you can’t play politics with them. Sir, when we are dealing with an intricate Bill like this, I think we want utter frankness from the hon. Deputy Minister.

What are you insinuating?

The hon. Deputy Minister, I think, has left unsaid matters of equal importance to those to which he referred, and it is in respect of those matters that I want to keep the House for a few moments.

The hon. Minister stated that the Bill applies to certain traditional Coloured areas in the Cape. But of course the Bill does not apply only to the traditional Coloured areas. You see, Sir, I am afraid that it is long past the stage where we on this side of the House are prepared to accept what is the intention of the Minister or the Government, or any other authority. We seek to find what is in the Bill. It is the printed word that we are concerned with, the contents of the Bill, and it is quite clear that the Bill itself makes provision not only for its application to traditional Coloured areas, but in Clause 3 it makes provision for its application to any rural area defined in a proclamation, which has at any time been granted, transferred, or set aside for occupation or ownership of Coloured persons. Those are not traditional areas. Indeed, the words “at any time” I submit mean “at any time before the issue of a proclamation”, not at any time before the passing of this Bill, not at any lime which may be specified by the Minister, but at any time before the issue of a proclamation. It may well be two or three or five years from now that an area may be set aside for Coloured people, and provided only that thereafter a proclamation is issued in terms of this Bill, they are validly brought within the compass of this Bill in terms of that proclamation.

Let us make it quite clear at once, without any shadow of doubt, any possibility of confusion, that we on this side of the House are going to welcome any steps that the Government may take to ameliorate the position of the Coloured people in their economic or social life, in their means to find a livelihood and in their pursuit of social security and happiness. We will help the Government. We would have liked the Minister to have come with a much more all-embracing Bill than this one, with his objects set out specifically and clearly. Some of the provisions of this Bill are so involved that some of the best legal brains of this House have sat long, long hours trying to find out precisely what they mean. For that reason I want to move an amendment, which I hope the hon. the Minister will accept, namely—

I hope the hon. the Minister will accept that; and let us in the Select Committee find out precisely what benefits the Minister wishes to bestow on the Coloured people, either in those reserves dealt with under Act 29 of 1909, (the old mission reserves) or any other reserves in respect of which he wishes to grant the benefits which accrue from the application of the Act of 1909. Let us go into the whole matter and see in how far we can all work together, and in how far the present Bill can be simplified and the intention made clear.

I want to deal with one or two aspects which are not clear, and other speakers on this side of the House will also deal with them. But I want to say at once what our fear is. Our fear is that this Bill can be used by the Government, administratively, for the purpose of setting up separate areas for the Coloured people who will have a group existence, divorced from the other racial groups in South Africa, a Colouredstan in the same way as it is Government policy to create Bantustans. Reference has already been made to the possibility of Asiatics being treated in a similar way, and the hon. the Prime Minister the other day spoke about four parallel columns of the four races in South Africa growing up side by side: The Coloured people, the White people, the Bantu and the Asiatics. Now in principle we believe that the Coloured people should not be treated in that manner. They should seek their economic future amongst the White people of South Africa, and also their political future. That is the basis of our policy. We believe that they should seek it amongst the White people. We are utterly opposed to any proposal which will arbitrarily and in an artificial manner create these racial divisions, which in the fulness of time will never be maintained. We may think that we have the four groups growing up on parallel lines side by side, never touching. But fate is going to be too strong, and we will find the non-Europeans, the Bantu and the Coloureds and the Asiatics, making one broad stream in common cause against the White man. Sir, don’t let us do it. And in this Bill we fear that this is providing the groundwork for an administrative set-up where the Government can start to develop separate homelands for the Coloured people. I say that, because quite apart from speeches that have been made by hon. members on the other side (which I could quote to them), the White Paper which the hon. the Prime Minister issued the other day gave us a clear indication of what the policy of the Government is. I do not want to pursue that any further than necessary, but I want to say that I was glad to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister did not in his argument hold out the hope that this Bill in some way or other would help to provide farms for the Coloured people, because that was an argument that I have heard amongst members of this House that here was the first step to provide these people with farms. The hon. Deputy Minister did not use that argument and I am glad he did not.

Landownership is included in the 1909 Act.

What the hon. the Deputy Minister says is important. In respect of this matter we do not want to be at odds with the Government. It would suit us on this side of the House if it could be said that legislation of this sort affecting the welfare and well-being of the Coloured people was put on the Statute Book with the unanimous support of Parliament. That would be a great day for South Africa. Now the hon. Deputy Minister says that in the areas contemplated by this Bill there is a right of landownership.

I say that the right of ownership is included in the 1909 legislation.

I accept that. But what is that right of ownership? Is it freehold ownership, unrestricted? I want to say quite frankly that as we read this Bill it is not. It is a right of occupation, where the registered occupier may hold the right of occupation, but not unrestricted title. Indeed, I go further, and in respect of those areas not in the existing mission reserves, but in areas outside the mission reserves which may (if I may use the word) be incorporated for the purpose of paragraph (3) of the Bill, if in those incorporated areas there are Coloured folk who own land, and own it with a clear title, an unrestricted title, a title deed which gives them freehold title, in terms of this Bill, as I read it, they lose that right when incorporation takes place. They maintain their right to remain as registered occupiers in the area on that land, or a portion of it, but, Sir, if my construction is wrong, then Clause 6 makes nonsense. Because what is the position under Clause 6 where the payment of compensation is dealt with? What is compensation paid for under Clause 6? Compensation is paid for a loss of some kind, and if I am correct, then I can understand what Clause 6 is for—the compensation is in respect of the dominion which the present freehold owner, the Coloured owner, in an incorporated area may have. He loses that dominion and can be compensated under Clause 6. If on the other hand he does not lose that dominion, then for what should he get compensation; then he has lost nothing? You do not pay compensation for nothing. Indeed, the compensatory clauses in this Bill are rather savage. Hon. members on this side of the House who come after me will deal with that. So, Sir, we are in this position that the Minister has enumerated a large number of mission reserves in the Cape in respect of which Act 29 of 1909 already applies. He mentioned one in the Free State, and he gave four cases in the Cape where he said that the people concerned had made application to be brought under the Act of 1909. Now a simple provision, an amendment to the 1909 Act, to provide for incorporation under the terms of that Act of these areas that had applied for admission, would have been sufficient and that would not call for an intricate measure such as the one we have before us. And this measure does not apply to the Cape, nor does it apply to the Cape and the Free State, it applies to the whole of the Union, and we cannot resist the feeling that what the Government is doing here, is to get a leg in with legislation which has as its object vast areas in which only Coloured people will reside, and nobody except Coloured people, and that those areas can be made to grow from time to time, either by the acquisition of adjacent land under the Group Areas Act (which must be associated with this Act, because the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. C. V. de Villiers) on Friday, and already last year, forecast precisely the use to which the Group Areas Act would be put in regard to homelands for the Coloured people. Now if the Group Areas Act is to be used as an instrument for adding to these Coloured reserves further land, then the position is that whereas the Group Areas Act cannot be applied to the mission reserves when once they were brought under the 1909 Act and the Group Areas Act cannot be applied to those reserves, the Group Areas Act can well be applied first to an area and then this legislation can be applied afterwards on top of the Group Areas Act. Indeed I want to say at once that the hon. Minister neglected to explain one of the most grievous positions in this Bill, and we can only link it with the position of the areas which may be added to one of these proclaimed areas when the time comes, and that is Clause 14.

Clause 14 provides that the Governor-General may by proclamation repeal laws and parts of laws, passed by Parliament, in so far as he deems they are repugnant to the object of this Bill. Mr. Speaker, I don’t say that there could never be a law in South Africa which would not be of such fundamental importance and of such great moment that it would not be necessary for the Governor-General to be vested with some extreme power like that to deal with exceptional circumstances in an extraordinary crisis. But to bring a power like that into a Bill of this nature, surely is unprecedented. For the Governor-General to be vested with the power to repeal laws of this Parliament! To repeal laws which in his opinion (which means the Minister or the Deputy Minister) are in conflict with the intention of this Bill, is monstrous—laws passed by Parliament, without Parliament knowing what is happening! I think it is an incredible position.

The Deputy Minister passed over Clause 14 and never mentioned it, a matter of such vast importance. That fills us with deep foreboding as to what is in the Deputy Minister’s mind in regard to the use of that clause. There must be a reason for it. A clause with far-reaching powers like that is not incorporated in a Bill of this character unless the Deputy Minister has in his mind the purpose for which these powers are to be used, what he intends to do with that wide authority.

There is another point I want to come to in regard to these incorporated areas, the areas which are to be brought within ambit of that proclamation under this Bill. It is the clause dealing with disqualified persons, persons who are not Coloured people. Mr. Speaker, under the Group Areas Act of course the Minister could deal with elements which are not of the racial character of the people in a group area which have been proclaimed for ownership or occupation of persons of one race, whether they be Coloured people or people of whatever race. Under the Group Areas Act the Minister could deal with that. The Minister is more savage than the Group Areas Act, and we think that the Group Areas Act is pretty savage. It may be argued that at the present time there are a relatively small number of disqualified persons who will be in any of these areas in respect of which the Deputy Minister foresees their being brought within the ambit of the proclamation of this Bill. There may not be many. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that that is not going to satisfy this side of the House. I think there should be no principle more carefully watched by Parliament than the principle of adequate compensation, even for the meanest citizen, when it is claimed to be in the interest of state policy that he should be deprived of his property and his rights. Parliament should be for ever careful that under no circumstances even the meanest of our people should be deprived of their property or rights without adequate compensation which Parliament alone can provide. When the state, the people of the country, because of state policy, have to deprive a citizen or citizens of their rights, of their property, then it should only be done under circumstances where the greatest care is taken of the rights of the people concerned. That is not done here. I don’t know what the number of people is who will be disqualified persons for the purpose of this Bill, who will have to either sell to a qualified person, or to the state. And let me say in passing that if the Minister’s claims are right and if the stories that we hear are right in regard to this measure, then where the background of these people is one of poverty, almost of penury, of people who are continually striving to make ends meet and who are economically on a very low level, then they are obviously people who will be unable to buy out a person in the community who is a person of the disqualified group. But he is given a year, or the Minister may give him a permit for a longer period, or his property falls back to the state; the Minister takes it over under the conditions which have been laid down and which are entirely unsatisfactory. I do not want to go into the details of that, because that will be dealt with by other speakers. But I merely say at this stage that the form adopted for compensation is entirely unsatisfactory. I submit that this is not the way in which we want to deal with this matter. If the’ Deputy Minister wants to extend the 1909 Act beyond those mission reserves, to which it applies at present, and there may be very good reasons for doing so, then he should come with a Bill to give him the power to extend it to these other areas, straight and plain. Then we know where we are. If he wants to go out into the rural districts on a larger scale and he wants to build up Colouredstans in terms of Government policy, then let him say so, and let us see what the Colured people get out of it. But I want to make this point, that where the Coloured people are concerned, we on this side of the House will not rest satisfied with a method of acquisition of land by the Coloured people which does not give them freehold. It is interesting that the Group Areas Act is administered by the same Minister as this Bill, and that Minister if he desires under the Group Areas Act to provide Coloured people with the opportunity to acquire farms in the Union of South Africa, has that power to-day. All he has got to do is to put the whole of South Africa for all practical purposes under the Group Areas Act, because it is, outside the scheduled Native areas, a controlled area under the Group Areas Act, and he can give permits to Coloured people to go and buy farms. If that is what he wants to do, he has the power, and we will welcome that and will say that is a fine development. But then let him put that in a Bill so that the people may know within the four corners of a statute precisely what their rights are. Let us then get it in that manner before us. But, Sir, this Bill is intricate, it is inconclusive so far as we are concerned, as to the precise intentions not that the Minister has, but what can be read into the Bill if it becomes law in its present form. And we do not want that. We want the Coloured people concerned, without the necessity of getting the best legal advice that money can buy in South Africa, to know exactly where they stand in regard to their rights and the position they occupy in the areas in respect of which a proclamation is issued. I hope that the Coloured people in South Africa, and particularly in the Cape, where this seems to apply most, will not run away with the idea that the Government through this Bill is doing them a great favour, that it is providing them with a method of attaining amenities and help which is otherwise denied them because they do not at present fall under the 1909 Act. The Government may be giving them a small favour with one hand. But what is the major injustice which the Government is perpetrating at the same time without the Coloured people being aware of it? Is there a major injustice which is being perpetrated? I submit that until we take this Bill to a Select Committee where with the best legal advice we can get we can hammer this Bill out as it can only be done in the Select Committee, before the second reading, it will not be possible to get an Act which will be acceptable to both sides. Before I sit down, I want to say again that the hon. the Minister can render a great service to the Coloured people by having the whole of this House behind him, to get his legislation accepted unanimously. If it means patience, if it means investigation, if it means a little more time to sit down in a Select Committee, it will be time and effort well spent if we can ultimately come together and say: This is a Bill that we all accept. Sir, otherwise what are we going to do? We are going to create another apple of discord between the Coloured people and the White people of this country, the very thing that the hon. Minister, I believe, has been attempting to avoid. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to accept my amendment.

I second the amendment and I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that if he wanted to achieve the things which he has outlined in his introductory speech, he did not need a Bill of this nature at all. A Bill achieving these particular objects for a community was passed through this House with no opposition just a matter of a few days ago, and this side of the House has no objection whatsoever to benefits which the hon. the Deputy Minister can bestow upon these traditional Coloured areas, in order to improve the lot of the people living in those areas.

The hon. Deputy Minister has set out for the benefit of this House in his speech a few of the objects he hopes to attain by this Bill, and he ended up by saying that it is a Bill which should be welcomed by the Coloured people, and that he has no intention of using this Bill for the development of Colouredstans. I want to try to show the hon. the Deputy Minister what I believe this Bill contains. That is what the House is concerned with at the moment, and then the House must decide whether this House and the Coloured people can in fact welcome this measure. I think it is our duty at this stage, in view of the fact that this Bill is complicated, to set out our interpretation of the Bill and leave the House to decide exactly if or where we are wrong, and let the hon. the Minister fill in the missing links for us and let us get a Bill which, as the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) has said, will be acceptable to all the people concerned.

Before we go on to consider what the Minister can achieve with this Bill, we should take one or two other factors into consideration to guide us in considering the clauses of this Bill. The first one is the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister that he intends to develop the people of South Africa along a four-stream policy. I take it that by that he meant first of all that the Whites would develop along one channel, the Bantu along another, the Coloured along another and the Asiatics along the fourth channel. That is borne out by statements in Hansard in the debate last year when the hon. member for Vasco outlined on the vote “Coloured Affairs” more or less what we are faced with to-day, and he ended up by saying—

Obviously the intention is to give the Coloured man an opportunity of developing in his own area. Following on that, the hon. the Prime Minister issued a statement on the policy of his Government concerning the Coloured people, and I think in that he made two points very clear. The first one was that whilst the Department of Coloured Affairs was working out a plan to advance the Coloured people in the socio-economic field, the Union Coloured Council should be developed to represent the Coloured people and bring them eventually to a self-governing community. There is a further indication that that is the intention of this Government. We have a little further information and I interpret the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement as meaning that Coloured representatives, in due course, as this developes, would possibly disappear. I say that because the hon. the Prime Minister in this statement makes it quite clear that he, together with the Deputy Minister of the Interior, will consult yearly with the elected leaders of the Coloured people so that their affairs can be brought to the notice of this Parliament and the various Government Departments.

Order! I think the hon. member is now going quite beyond the scope of this Bill.

Sir, I accept your ruling. I quoted these just as indications of the policy which the Government intends to follow, as it has been outlined.

Bearing what I have said in mind, I now want to come back to what I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to achieve with this Bill. I will discuss that step by step because I think it so important that everybody should have a clear picture of where this Bill can take us. First of all, as the hon. member for South Coast has indicated, the Deputy Minister, through the Governor-General, can proclaim any area, whether a new area or a recognized Coloured area, under this Bill. In other words the Deputy Minister—and I am addressing my remarks to him particularly although the title might change—can establish, first of all, a Coloured area. He can then proceed to remove from that Coloured area anyone who is not Coloured. That point has already been made but I believe that in the sequence of this it should be brought into the picture. He can do that quite easily in terms of Clause 3. When he has reached that stage he has established a Coloured area, however small it might be.

Having purified that area of elements other than Coloureds, the land which he has taken over vests in the Minister on behalf of the Coloured people. It can then be handed to a board when such a board is eventually set up. When the Minister sets up this board, obviously, he is going to take quite a lot of care about setting up a board which agrees with him where a board does not exist. So we can assume for the purpose of this argument that the Minister can now establish a small Coloured area which to all intents and purposes, can reflect the policy which the Government has indicated they wish to apply to those areas.

There is one point I would like to make a point about which I am not quite sure and on which I would like some information from the hon. the Deputy Minister. The point is that he can, in fact, in establishing these Coloured areas at this stage, deprive certain people of ownership rights which they now enjoy in these areas. I am not sure on this but it does appear to me that under the provisions of Clause 4 read in conjunction with Clause 6 this can in fact be achieved. Under the provisions of Clause 4 the owner of land at the fixed date now becomes a registered occupier instead of a registered owner. And if you turn to Clause 6 it is said in sub-section (1) (b)—

That is, that he shall not be compensated for the land—

In other words the indications to me are that the Deputy Minister can compensate him for improvements but not for the land. It would appear to me from that, that the hon. the Deputy Minister can possibly actually deprive a man of his ownership rights. I think that that is a very important point in establishing these Coloured areas as envisaged here.

The Minister can then proceed to obtain ownership of all the land in the area by a series of clauses which he has already mentioned, clauses which, as the hon. member for South Coast has said, are even more harsh than those provided under the Group Areas Act. It would appear that under these various clauses the Minister can obtain this land and effect the control of the whole area in a very much shorter time than he could in fact do it under the Group Areas Act. There is provision for notification within a very short period in Clause 9 that is within 30 days. There are very heavy penalties provided for those who do not comply with that regulation within the stipulated period. And there is also a provision that any land belonging to a registered owner who has not complied or who cannot be contacted, can be taken over within a period of 12 months. So that on the face of it it would appear that the Minister can acquire all the outstanding land, possibly within a period of 12 months, unless he proclaims otherwise in taking the land over. That is another point that I would like to have cleared up, because a period of a year in which to move, for a disqualified person who might have lived in that particular property for 40 or 50 years is a very short period indeed. It is too short a period to pack up your home or your business or whatever it may be and remove yourself to another area.

Having taken all these steps the Minister has then virtually established what one can call a small Colouredstan, in spite of the denials of the hon. the Deputy Minister. Because that is virtually what it is. In such a small area, perhaps one would not be quite entitled to attach this name Colouredstan, or whatever one might wish to attach to them. But there is the fact that the hon. Minister can now proceed to enlarge this area by the acquisition of other land, if he uses skilfully the existing Group Areas Act and Clause 14 of this Bill under which he can override anything whatsoever that might stand in the way of his achieving his objective of building up a very much larger area. That is a fact which I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will have the greatest difficulty in disproving in his reply, because it is set out here in such simple terms and in such a straightforward manner that I do not think it needs any particular skill to read that into the Bill.

As I have said the Minister can now proceed to enlarge the area by attaching other areas around it or by tacking this area on to another larger area. So that he can work it either way and it makes no difference. Either he can apply this Bill to a small area next to an existing Coloured area, or he can do it in reverse. It makes no difference whatsoever. The point is that this is a process which can snowball. It can snowball to an area as large as the Deputy Minister wants that area to be. I am not necessarily criticizing him, I am criticizing the contents of this Bill, this innocuous Bill which took only ten minutes to introduce to this House. These are the provisions, as we read them in this very complicated Bill, and it is up to the hon. the Deputy Minister to clear these points up for us in this House so that everybody is at one and understands exactly what his intentions are; so that there are no intentions withheld from us, and so that we can then get down in the Committee Stage and see exactly what amendments we want to suggest regarding this Bill.

I have said before that the Minister concerned could have achieved his objectives in either of two ways. He could have introduced a very simple Bill which would have achieved exactly the objectives which the hon. the Deputy Minister set out, of applying the benefits of the 1909 Act to certain Coloured areas which do not at present enjoy the benefits of that Act. We accept that anything that improves the lot of these people can most certainly be applied as far as this side of the House is concerned. But we do not like these little strings wrapped up in gift wrapping as this Bill appears to do. The hon. the Deputy Minister could possibly have achieved exactly the same objective under the provisions of the Group Areas Act. There is very little in this Bill that is not contained in the Group Areas Act. The thought comes to one’s mind as to why he did not, in fact, use the Group Areas Act if he wanted to achieve what we see written into this Bill. Why did he have to produce another Bill which is neither a simple Bill applying the benefits of the 1909 Act, nor is it a Bill as long and as cumbersome as the Group Areas Act, but it is a Bill which is probably, for his particular purpose, far more effective than the Group Areas Act. The hon. member for South Coast has already shown how the hon. the Deputy Minister can simply superimpose the requirements of this Bill on the Group Areas Act, but cannot do that in reverse. He probably has a special objective, and the only objective we can see in this Bill is that he takes these powers written into this Bill to create what we are calling, for lack of another word, Colouredstans. And it is up to the hon. the Deputy Minister to show us that we are wrong.

I have wondered why the hon. the Deputy Minister did not use the Group Areas Act to achieve this effect and, frankly, the only reason I can think of is because the Group Areas Act is one which is not acceptable to anybody. It is a bad Act in its application. I am not criticizing the Act, I am talking about its application. It is an Act which is difficult to apply, and the hon. the Deputy Minister admits that. He is introducing an amendment to it in the near future. It is an Act which nobody likes.

Order, order! The Group Areas Act is not under consideration. I have allowed the hon. member to cover a very wide field but I should not like him to go any further.

I will obey your ruling Mr. Speaker. What I do say is that I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister could have achieved his objective in other ways or, failing that he could have come to this House with either a simple straightforward Bill or, as the member for South Coast has said, he could have set-out a comprehensive Bill providing for the whole future of these people and setting out very clearly for us to agree or disagree with, a Bill which would explain to the Coloured people exactly what they are going to get and what they are not going to get. Everybody would then know exactly where they stand. But unfortunately he has chosen to come with this Bill on which we seek information from him. We have one interpretation, he obviously has a totally different interpretation. Mr. Speaker, we will never solve our non-European problems in that manner. If we are going to get down to a proper and just solution of these things then the legislation which comes before this House must be put in the simplest possible terms; it must be put in a form that everybody can understand. I know that the average legislation requires clauses which are difficult to understand by many people, but I believe it is the duty of the hon. the Deputy Minister and his Department to try and simplify that as much as possible. They should do that so that these people, many of whom are ignorant, many of whom have a low standard of education, can understand what is being done for them and what they are gaining or losing. I contend that there are very few members of the Coloured community who understand this Bill. I believe that there are very few members of the Coloured community who would have objected, had this Bill gone through without any criticism from this side of the House, not because the conditions which would have been applied to them eventually were acceptable to them, but because of the simple fact that they did not understand what was in the Bill and what they were being exposed to. I believe that even now the Coloured people do not understand most of the contents of this Bill.

How many of the Government members understand it?

For that matter I think the hon. member is right when he says that very few members of the Government Party understand it. I think I am quite fair in commenting on how little I think the Coloured people know about it. And I think it is unfair to bring legislation of this nature before the House in such a manner that these people do not understand it. I believe that the hon. member for South Coast, in asking for this Bill to go before a Select Committee before the second reading, is doing not only this House and the hon. the Deputy Minister a favour, but I believe he is doing the Coloured people a very great favour by trying to give them an opportunity of having people go into this legislation thoroughly before it is applied to them. In view of that I have pleasure in seconding the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) said at the commencement of his speech that the hon. the Deputy Minister was making efforts outside to obtain the goodwill of the Coloured people, but, he added, the proper place to do that was here in this House. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister comes forward this evening with a positive measure, one of the measures by means of which the Government is trying to promote the interests of the Coloured population, and what do we get from the Opposition? They say: Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister not come forward with a comprehensive Bill? They drag in such matters as the franchise amongst others, matters which have nothing to do with this Bill whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill deals with one specific matter. The other things which they are talking about and which they have in mind are matters to which this Government is giving attention. We shall still have further positive measures of this nature. The Coloured population attach greater value to this kind of positive action than to speeches about political rights. What was really the main objection of hon. members opposite? They are afraid of a Colouredstan. The hon. member for South Coast has stans on his brain. If it is not a Bantustan then it is a Colouredstan or it is a United Partystan in Natal. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that this measure had nothing to do with a Colouredstan. Hon. members opposite have allowed themselves to be mislead by the misrepresentations on the part of the Press in regard to a so-called Colouredstan which the Government allegedly wanted to establish. This Bill deals with existing areas. These areas are not to be created; they are there already. Those hon. members who talk like that should go and visit those areas which are already under the control of the Department of Coloured Affairs. They should go there and see for themselves what has already been done in recent years and then they should go and look at those areas which have not as yet been incorporated and see the deplorable conditions which prevail in those areas and the big difference between the two. These Coloured people welcome the fact that they are to receive the same services.

Mr. Speaker, reference has been made here to what I said in the past and that I am supposed to have referred to Coloured areas— “homelands for the Coloureds” as the hon. member put it. But it is the policy of this Government to develop the Coloureds in their own areas. When we talk about their own areas we do not have in mind only those areas on the platteland, the reserves, which already exist. We have in mind their own towns and cities adjacent to us, as our neighbours, where they will have the opportunity to develop. That is our policy and we have often said it. And that, Mr. Speaker, is the only policy in terms of which we can give to the Coloured people what they are entitled to. Because of the objection we have heard this evening I want to ask this question: Do hon. members not wish us to develop these areas for the Coloured people; must they be thrown open? They said they were afraid that we would acquire more land and enlarge those areas. When there are thousands of Coloured people in an area, as there are in some cases, who cannot make a living there and who suffer in consequence, do hon. members object to the acquisition of more land? Or must we allow those Coloureds to perish or must they flock to the cities with the accompanying problems? Some people see nothing but the Coloureds in the cities and they forget the thousands on the platteland who also need attention. It is a good thing that we keep them on the platteland and that we assist them there because we need them there. We should help them to make a living there. During the past few years the Government and the Department of Coloured Affairs under the guidance of the hon. the Deputy Minister have shown what is meant by the development of the Coloured areas. We have been busy with that for a few years already. We can produce figures to show to what extent those areas were neglected, that the previous Government did nothing for those poor Coloured people and the facilities which we are to-day providing and the assistance we are giving them to develop their own areas; to-day they have a greater say in the management of their own areas than before. This Bill makes provision for the establishment of hoards on which occupiers will serve. We are giving them an opportunity and helping them to manage and conduct their own affairs. Reference has been made to those people who will not qualify and who have to leave. But the Bill makes provision for suitable compensation to be paid to people who have property rights there. Compensation can be paid in various ways—not only in one way. They also have the right to appeal to higher authority.

I want to refer to Clause 14 to which hon. members opposite have also referred, in which provision is made for any law which is in conflict with this legislation to be repealed by proclamation. At the moment we do not know of any such law but it may become clear at a later stage that there is some or other legal provision which is in conflict with this Bill. That is why we have to make provision for that. The Bill simply provides that if there is any legal provision which is in conflict with the provisions of this Bill, such a law can be repealed by proclamation.

What you are saying now is not true.

Furthermore, the Act of 1909 lays down how these areas should be managed. Hon. member of the Opposition are harbouring a fear to-night which is completely unfounded. Clause 2 provides that Act 29 of 1909 applies mutatis mutandis to this Bill. That Act provides how those areas should be managed. That is why we are rather stunned at the opposition we are encountering from hon. members opposite this evening, where they always have such a great deal to say about what should be done for the Coloured people. This is a positive measure with no ulterior motives, to do something also for the Coloured people on the platteland.

I want to conclude by saying that the main objection of the Opposition to this Bill is the fact that it is based on the policy of separate development. Hon. members of the Opposition do not wish the Coloureds to develop as a separate group. I want to ask them this: If we were to allow the Coloured people to develop with the White section as one community, what chance will the Coloured people have then? No, Mr. Speaker, we can only thank the Government for having come forward with this measure to provide the Coloured people on the platteland with a home and to help them out of the distress in which they find themselves at the present moment.

The hon. member for Vasco (Mr. C. V. de Villiers) wound up his speech by saying that this side of the House was opposed to the Bill because it provided for the separate development of the Coloured people. I hope he is not going to make this a political issue. Our opposition from this corner of the House is not based on that ground. If that was the reason why the hon. the Minister was introducing this Bill our opposition would be very much stronger. Our opposition from the Progressive Party is because it contains one principle to which we strongly object, namely, that the hon. the Minister is empowered to remove people, on grounds of race alone, from properties on which they have lawfully established themselves. Because of that we object to this Bill. But to the extent that the Bill is also meant to be a measure for the preservation and the development of the existing Coloured areas, we welcome it as far as that aspect is concerned. We have therefore drafted a further amendment to this effect, which I now move, as follows—

Since we decided on this particular course, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) has moved an amendment that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee before the second reading. If that amendment is accepted we shall be happy to accept it as well and not to press for this amendment. But that remains to be seen. If the hon. the Deputy Minister is not prepared to accept that amendment we shall move our amendment and press it to a vote.

We are satisfied that this Bill deals with existing Coloured areas. The suggestion has been made by hon. members that it may enable the Government to create and then to preserve further Coloured areas. As far as I can see from this Bill its terms do not allow the Minister to do that. In the first place, acording to the long title of the Bill, it is a Bill to “provide for the preservation of certain traditional Coloured areas I cannot see that the hon. the Minister would now be able to create further areas, call them traditional and then preserve them. I am strengthened in that interpretation by the terms of Clause 3 which states—

It is true that the words “at any time” are used, but I feel that if the Bill was intended to allow the hon. the Minister to create further areas and then set them aside and have them administered in terms of this Act, the further words would have been included “whether before or after the proclamation of this Act”. As those words are omitted, I am satisfied that this Bill deals only with existing Coloured areas. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister’s assurance that that is so. Assuming that that is so, we welcome the measures included in this Bill which will allow the hon. the Minister to develop these areas. During the years in which these areas have existed, there has been a measure of neglect and in many cases the reserves have deteriorated. Not only have they not been developed but they have actually deteriorated. By bringing them under the 1909 Act as well as this new Act, the Government will be enabled to give them more financial assistance, to set up boards of management, to assist with fencing, with boreholes and a number of other measures which will be extremely advantageous to the areas concerned. I also think it is true to say that the people in certain of these areas have asked to be placed under the administration of the 1909 Act. To the extent, therefore, that this will undoubtedly assist in the development of the existing areas, we welcome the Bill and will give it our support.

Unfortunately, we feel that this Bill is marred by the principle that a person who is a disqualified person—in other words, a person who is not a Coloured person—may be removed from these areas on grounds of race alone. We are totally opposed to that principle. We are opposed to it not only in the rural areas but also in the urban areas. It is one principle on which we took a very strong line in relation to the Group Areas Act, when we said that no person should be removed from property on which he has lawfully established himself on the grounds of race alone. We do not object to certain areas being set aside for one racial group only and to restrictions being placed on the acquisition of property there. Here we are also consistent, not only in our approach to the rural areas but also in our approach to urban areas. We would not object, for instance, if a local authority wished to develop a township for one racial group only, with certain qualifications. We should expect there to be fair treatment of all racial groups concerned, and there must also be areas which are not controlled in this way, sufficient to meet the needs of people who do not wish to live in segregated areas. But we are not opposed to the principle of certain areas being set aside for one particular race group only. Therefore, when talking here of rural Coloured areas we do not object to the principle of development for Coloured persons only. What we do strongly oppose is the fact that a person or persons of other racial groups who may be living within these areas may be forced to move on the grounds of their race alone.

Even if they are compensated?

That appears to be clearly provided in Clause 4 of the Bill. Some questions have been asked as to whether in fact people have ownership and are liable to lose that ownership. Clause 4 (2) (b) states that—

And in Clause 4 (2) (b) (iii) it says that disqualified persons may be forced to give up their property rights. That clause reads—

So it seems clear that this Bill does envisage the removal of persons from properties which they own, on 12 months’ notice or within such time as the Governor-General may lay down. To that principle we are opposed.

There are also other rights of persons living in these areas of which they may be deprived. There, too, we do not see why the Minister should be able to deprive those people of those rights. Even as far as compensation is concerned, if they are to be granted compensation after being forcibly removed, the compensation is clearly not adequate. This aspect is dealt with by Clause 12 of the Bill where it is stated that—

Then various principles are laid down stating, for instance,

1. (a) The fact that the owner has been deprived of his land or right without his consent, shall not be taken into account.

Secondly, assuming that a person who becomes a disqualified person is carrying on trade in a shop, it seems quite wrong that he can be removed from that shop and that the value of his goodwill shall not be taken into consideration in assessing his compensation. There are various other factors, e.g. the suitability or usefulness of the land for the purpose for which it is required which are not taken into consideration. These things could limit the amount of compensation in a way that is quite unfair. So that quite apart from the fact that we do not believe that a person should be deprived of his rights at all by compulsion, we also object to the manner in which the compensation is assessed.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give any indication of how many disqualified persons do in fact live within these areas which may be incorporated. Some years ago, in 1947, there was an interdepartmental report and at that time it was clear that there were a number of European families, and possibly also Indians, living in these areas; e.g. the 1947 report refers to 21 European families living in the Richtersveld and to 15 European families living at Pella, and others living in other areas as missionaries and traders. I would like to know whether the Minister has any clear idea of how many persons would be affected by this disqualifying clause. I do not think the number affects the principle concerned, but nevertheless I would like to know how many of these people there are. Will the Minister also tell us what areas there are which might be put under the administration of this Act? A list of areas was given in a schedule to the report of the Commissioner of Coloured Affairs in 1953 and it mentioned some 19 areas, 11 or 12 of which are already under the 1909 Act, and there were certain others where the application of the Act was receiving consideration. Are there further areas not mentioned in this list which might also be brought under the administration of this Act? For example, I do not see any mention of a place like Zuurbraak, where I understand there are a number of Coloured owners and where a number of the plots which they owned at one stage have been sold to Whites and other people. Then at one stage the Griquas owned a large area of land in the Kokstad area, and much of that land has since been sold. Is it the intention to incorporate an area such as that? Further, is it intended to bring the Dunn Reserve in Natal under the Act? We should appreciate some further information from the Minister on the existing areas which might be put under the application of the Act.

To sum up, therefore, Sir, we believe this to be essentially a measure for the preservation of the existing Coloured areas and in that sense we welcome it, but we feel strongly about the principle of removing people forcibly from areas where they are quite legally established and therefore we move this amendment.

I second.

We have the position recently as far as the United Party and the Progressive Party are concerned, that they are bidding against each other. When the United Party moves an amendment to a Bill the Progressive Party moves one better. And so we have witnessed Operation Green Point earlier to-day. This Bill is part of the Government’s socioeconomic developmental plan for the Coloureds. The statement in which the Government announced this plan reads as follows—

There are more or less 2,000,000 morgen of land in the Union to-day in the form of reserves and mission stations. The effect of this Bill will be that ultimately every traditionally Coloured area will come under this legislation and will be administered in terms thereof, as such will fall under the control of the Government. Clause 3 provides for these areas to be taken over on a reasonable basis by consultation or by proclamation. As has been stated here the position is that the most appalling conditions prevail in some of these areas. For years no improvements have been brought about in them. The United Party has never been interested in the development of the Coloured people and in their welfare in those homes of theirs. They were, however, interested in their votes, but they never moved a finger to bring about any improvement in any one of those areas. Many of those areas have been trampled out by donkeys and many of the smaller towns—I have seen many of them —are nothing more than haunts for loafers and criminals. The object of the Government is that all these areas should in future be administered under this legislation so that they will be properly developed, their carrying capacity increased and their towns properly organized so that they will flourish and to keep the young Coloured people there and provide employment facilities for those who are there. Once these towns and areas are incorporated under this Act they may appoint management boards, and as soon as there are management boards, they may raise loans on very reasonable terms under existing legislation for the purpose of developing those areas. But they can go further. If they lack the potential they may ask the Minister to proclaim the area a betterment area, or the Minister himself may do so. In this way the areas will be properly developed. It is quite clear that the other areas which are already governed by these management boards have benefited tremendously by it and a great number of those areas have of their own accord asked us to be incorporated under the Act. We shall also be doing the Coloureds in the reserves a favour if we keep them there. During the past few years there has been a very big movement of Coloured people from the platteland to the cities and big towns, one reason being that they could no longer make a living in those traditional homes of theirs. This large-scale movement to the towns and cities present very big problems to the Coloured people themselves. Reference has been made to the problem of providing proper housing facilities for them, employment facilities, health services, and over and above that they fall easy prey to the evils of abuse of liquor and theft; all because they could not make a decent living in their own homes. It is not the object of this Bill to enlarge the scope of the existing reserves and towns but the Government is very honest in its intentions towards the Coloured and it has been stated here, and I wish to emphasize it, that the Coloureds suffer from as great a land hunger as the White people do, and the Government realizes that. That was why between May 1955 and March 1960 the Government spent R430,084 on the purchase of agricultural land in order to establish Coloured smallholders on it. That was an honest attempt to satisfy the land hunger of those people and to create a home for them on the platteland, not the Coloured-stan which the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) has on the brain. That has nothing to do with the expansion of these areas.

I want to deal for a moment with what the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) has said. He objects to the right which this Bill gives the Minister to remove people from those areas and he objects to the method of expropriation and he mentioned Suurbraak. I also want to mention Suurbraak as an example because I know it. Mr. Speaker, it is essential for the Minister to have that right because in the centre of the town in the Suurbraak area there are about ten White families. Surely it is against the policy and the principle of apartheid to allow those people to remain there and for that reason the Government must have the right to remove them. In other areas there are White traders whom we do not wish to remain there for all time because it is also the policy of the Government that the Coloureds themselves should do the trading in those areas. They are entitled to it and I do not think the hon. member for East London (North) should object when we wish to give them those opportunities. We have the position of Suurbraak where a White person owns a farm and that is surrounded by land belonging to Coloureds. It is essential for the Government to have the right to buy the land from such a farmer or to offer him other land in exchange. Otherwise it will be impossible to implement the policy of apartheid properly. No, I do not know what the United Party really wants. They find fault with every positive measure we lay before this House. To-night’s Argus, Sir, has big headlines and gives great publicity to the opening of the University College of Western Cape. I remarked to somebody that before long the United Party will say that they established that college, but when that matter was before this House and when we said that it was in the interests of the Coloured people to establish it—it has now been proved that more students attend that college than ever attended the open universities—the United Party fought us tooth and nail. They did so because they were never interested in the Coloured people. During the years when many of them have sat in this House on the strength of the Coloured vote, they never made a speech in which they pleaded the cause of these people; they only knew them during election times. Here we come with a positive measure, something we thought was really in the interests of the Coloured people, something to improve their lot, a lot which was often not a very happy one in many respects, and what do we find? Those hon. members of the Opposition use the hon. member for South Coast, who is willing to be used for any purpose, and the hon. member for Umlazi, not people from the Cape Province or from the Boland, to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them, and they do so with only one object in mind. The official Opposition is afraid that if they do not oppose this measure before Wednesday, the Progressive Party will score by it. We wish to encourage the Minister to go ahead with this positive measure to the benefit of the Coloured people.

It is a real pleasure to listen to a debate such as this, particularly when you are listening to people who have not the vaguest idea what they are talking about. I am very sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke so briefly because he is in the position to know all the facts and he knows what the needs of the Coloured people in those areas are and he took it for granted that hon. members knew as much as he did and that was why he spoke for only a quarter of an hour. Had he perhaps spent an hour in explaining this Bill we would not have had all the arguments which we have had. I merely want to say this that, as far as my little group on these benches is concerned, we shall be satisfied if the Minister agrees to accept a Select Committee but if he does not do so we are also quite satisfied with this Bill.

I just want to say this to the hon. the leader of the Opposition in Natal, who moved the first amendment, that long before there was any idea of a Colouredstan, I led a deputation of Coloured people from Saron to the Minister of Finance, who was Minister of the Interior at that time, to ask him for this very thing. That was before the hon. the Deputy Minister occupied the post which he now occupies. Since he was appointed Deputy Minister and became responsible for this work progress has been made and the legal draftsmen spent two years on drafting this piece of legislation so that it would cover all problems. But I was the person who repeatedly went to the Department and asked that something should be done to assist these people. I want to tell you, Sir, why it is essential.

If we go back in history some 50 years we will find that the whole of Concordia belonged to the Bastards, a section of the Coloured population, and what do they have to-day? The Europeans bought them all out and there are only two reserves left, Mier and Rietfontein. That is all that the Coloureds have to-day and I have been going to the Department daily, and how often have I not been to the Deputy Minister, to ask that the Europeans should please be bought out so that the Coloured people will once again be placed on their own land. Nothing is further from the truth than to maintain that the idea is to send Coloured people from the urban areas there, because as it is the Coloureds who are there at the moment find it difficult to make a living; it will be only by means of Government assistance that they will be able to advance and that assistance can only be given to those areas which have been referred to by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. Kotzé), namely, the 2,000,000 morgen which have already been proclaimed as reserves and which already fall under the 1909 Act. But there are other areas as well and in this respect I blame the various Church societies. They established mission stations and encouraged the people to come and settle there, where they multiplied. At some places they had a piece of land for gardening purposes and at other places not, but the moment they started to become independent the Church societies no longer saw their way clear to assist them, any further. Those people required streets, sanitation and water facilities and camps but the people who had brought them there could no longer assist them. How can they be assisted other than by means of the provisions of this Act? Sir, I found it very interesting to listen to the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld). I am sure he never knew that there was such a thing as a Coloured reserve, neither did he know that there were Coloured areas, Coloured areas which have now asked to be taken over by the Department. But what do we find? He is in this House by the Grace of God and it is possible that there may be an election later this year and the only hope the hon. member has is to try to stand for his own constituency again in the hope that the people from the Karoo, where the reserves are, will accept him.

Order! That is not relevant.

No, that is not in the Bill, Sir, but that is the object of the amendment.

There is one other point that I want to raise and that is the compulsory removal of those who do not qualify. But that is to be understood, Sir. As soon as an area is taken over under this Act, that area appoints its own Coloured Board and I want to ask this: Will the White person who is there, and who should not be moved according to the hon. member for East London (North), be willing to be governed by the laws of the Coloured Board? Of course he will not be satisfied. So we say we will either compensate him or give him another place. That is quite fair. I think he will be only too pleased to leave. As far as my Coloured constituents are concerned, they do not want to have those people there at all, because they themselves want to do the business there. I do not think it is necessary for me to say more about that aspect. I have more or less given the background and I am sorry to find that ways and means are being sought to delay this measure. It is a very fine way of doing it by saying that it should be referred to a Select Committee, but what will my constituents in the affected areas think of me if I vote for this Bill to go to a Select Committee? They do not understand anything about Select Committees. All they know is that they want this measure and they will say I voted against it. This whole opposition is childish. I want to tell the Minister that we may ask for minor amendments in the Committee Stage but I accept the spirit of the Bill; it is what I want.

There is one aspect of the speech of the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) that I do not quite follow, and that is that he told the House that he came to the Minister of the Interior two years ago with a deputation from Saron and it took the law advisers two years to draft the Bill. Well, I have no dispute with that, but if he was patient enough to wait two years for the law advisers to draft the Bill, surely he owes it to his constituents to wait another two months so that a Select Committee can examine the Bill. The hon. member said that he accepted a Select Committee, but that is the funniest acceptance I have ever heard about, because he said that if it is not accepted by the Minister, he still accepts the Bill. If his patience lasted two years, may I implore him to have patience for another two months so that this matter may be carefully examined to see that it is properly drafted and put on the Statute Book in the best possible way. Sir, I would be the last person in this House to oppose any measure that would be of any possible benefit to the Coloured people. I make bold to say that it would be unexpected of me to oppose such a measure, considering the plight of the people I represent and my knowledge of the deprivations they suffer, the lack of amenities and the wants and needs of these people. But I do not think anyone can attach any blame to me if I am careful in what I want put on to the Statute Book; and if that is so, I do not see why there should be any objection to this Bill being referred to a Select Committee.

I quite agree with the hon. member for Karoo that certain hon. members took part in the debate to-night with a very foggy idea of what they were actually discussing. I heard hon. members talking about Suurbraak. Sir, Suurbraak and Kruisfontein are in my constituency, and I intend visiting both these places this week for this reason as well as for other reasons. The hon. member for Parow (Mr. Kotzé) quoted Suurbraak as an example. I wonder whether he realizes that the Group Areas Board has already sat at Suurbraak and after some years of deliberations Suurbraak has been proclaimed under the Group Areas Act, and the Whites in Suurbraak have been given ten years to get out? They are mostly shopkeepers. Now, if the Group Areas Act was used in the case of Suurbraak, which is now proclaimed as a Coloured area, quite correctly, why is this Bill necessary? [Interjections.] I accept that the hon. member quoted it as an example, but he should first study his examples. Here we have a place which has already been proclaimed under the Group Areas Act, and can the hon. member explain to me why it is necessary to superimpose this Bill on that Act?

But the hon. member for East London (North) mentioned Suurbraak.

That is a crab-like way of getting out of it. The hon. member himself spoke about Suurbraak. I am not dealing now with the hon. member for East London (North). Suurbraak has already been proclaimed as a Coloured area. Does the hon. member agree with that?

Suurbraak is a good example of these places.

It seems to me that the hon. member does not understand the legal implications of the Bill. My question is that if the Group Areas Act could be proclaimed in Suurbraak, in what respect does he want to apply this Bill to Suurbraak? [Interjections.] I think I have made it obvious that the hon. member does not know what he is talking about. I do not want to go into a political wrangle about the whole issue. I am perfectly honest about this. If it is in the interest of the people I represent, I will support it, but I feel that to clear up any misunderstanding, it should be referred to a Select Committee, and I do not want to argue about it with either the hon. members for Parow or Vasco because there is an old Latin proverb which says: Beware of the Greeks when they bring presents, and I would not like to explain that any further at this stage.

An amendment has been moved asking that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. We have reached the stage where any of these measures pertaining to any aspect of the life of the Coloured people has to be considered very carefully. On the face of it, as the Bill reads, there might not be the slightest objection to it. I might not even have any objection to Clause 14. But as the result of what happened over the last 12 to 14 years, there is no doubt that we have to do with a section of our population, the Coloureds, who rightly or wrongly view certain measures with suspicion. If I support this measure in the House, I have to go back to my constituents and justify my support of it. Why should the matter not be considered by a Select Committee? Considering the adumbrations in this House by the hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. members on previous occasions, this measure is viewed with suspicion in certain circles amongst the Coloured community, and it can be put beyond any doubt whatever if it is referred to a Select Committee. It is all very well for the hon. member for Karoo to say that he came to the Minister of the Interior two years ago to ask him for this Bill. I would like to ask the hon. member for Karoo when he came to the Minister with his request, how many clauses did this proposed Bill have then? It is not the principle of what the hon. member came to ask for that I object to; it is the shape it took once it appeared in print as a draft Bill. That is what we are concerned about; not the principle that the hon. member is concerned about. It is to get this principle established beyond any doubt in the interests no only of myself as representative of the people concerned, not only in the interests of the Deputy Minister and the Government but last and not least, in the interests of the White man in South Africa, that we are asking for this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee. I can assure you, Sir, that the stage has been reached, to judge from the ominous-sounding Press reports which have appeared in the newspapers during the last few days of discussions between and conferences by different racial groups involving the Coloured people, that this matter should be put beyond any doubt. I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should allow this matter to be referred to a Select Committee, so that it may be thrashed out from all angles so that we can go out to the people whom we represent with a clear conscience and with a clean sheet and tell them that there is nothing wrong with it; that there are no ulterior motives and that they need not worry about it. As a matter of fact, Sir, as far as I personally am concerned, until such time as the hon. the Deputy Minister agrees to refer it to a Select Committee, I will be worried about it and have my doubts, because there is nothing to prevent the hon. the Deputy Minister or any future Minister from coming back to this House next year with a similar Bill, with a few additional amendments that may really be a pointer to the establishment of a Colouredstan or something similarly stupid.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down was not speaking in the interest of the Coloureds but of the United Party. If the hon. member wanted to speak on behalf of the Coloureds, he should have sat with his colleagues, but he sits in the ranks of the United Party and he is still carrying on the old United Party policy in respect of the Coloureds.

I would much rather take notice of the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux). I sat with that hon. member for nine years in the Cape Provincial Council, and notwithstanding the fact that he sat there for the United Party he always approached the subject of the Coloureds very objectively, and if the hon. member is prepared to accept this legislation on behalf of the Coloureds, then I accept that the great majority of the people in his constituency, which comprises three-quarters of the Cape Province, are satisfied with this legislation.

Before dealing with the Bill itself, I would like to direct a few words to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). The hon. member has the habit of acting in this House and even outside of it on the public platforms of the country as a sort of High Priest and of preaching at all and sundry. We saw that again to-night. The hon. member again preached at the Deputy Minister and the Government to-night in respect of its policy vis-à-vis the Coloureds. We all know that the hon. member, before coming to this House, was the Administrator of Natal. To-night the hon. member was very concerned about the 1,500 Coloureds in Natal who have no representation, and he came here to talk on their behalf. Now I want to ask the hon. member this: What did he do in Natal with the Afrikaans-speaking child …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I want to abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker; I will come back to the Bill. The hon. member moved an amendment here in terms of which he disapproves of this Bill, and one of the arguments he advanced was the fact that 1,500 Coloureds in Natal are disfranchised. I do not think you were in the Chair then, Sir, but that was one of the most important arguments he used in support of his amendment. Now I ask the hon. member who is so concerned about these 1,500 Coloureds in Natal whether, when he was Administrator, he was concerned about the Afrikaans-speaking child who could not enjoy his rights in Natal. I shall, however, leave that point. I am sure there will be an opportunity later for me to deal with the hon. member.

This Bill for the first time in history gives the Coloured the opportunity to satisfy his land hunger, and not only his land hunger but also his great love for the soil. The Coloureds are to a great extent a rural people, and a very large proportion of the Coloured population makes its living from the soil. Sir, this Bill about which so much fuss is being made does not deprive anybody of land. The fact is that in the case of many of these Coloured reserves there are White occupants who have been settled there for years, but there are not many White land-owners. It is these people who will be removed, but they will be compensated, just as in the case of the Native reserves when White people are removed. The Whites are therefore not being deprived of land. What this Bill envisages is to remedy an injustice. The hon. member asks what injustice? I will tell him what injustice it remedies. These reserves were established as long ago as 1909. Therefore ever since 1909 these areas have been recognized as being Coloured areas. Now I want to tell the hon. member that he should go and investigate the matter and then come and tell this House how much the United Party, which now has so much to say about the Coloureds, spent on these areas in the years when they were in power.

Nothing.

That is correct. The hon. member will then have to come back and tell us that they spent nothing. That is the injustice we are now remedying. This Government is now taking active steps; it is taking action, as opposed to all the talk of the United Party over the years.

These areas, Mr. Speaker, are in most instances situated in the best areas of South Africa. I am thinking, e.g. of a Coloured reserve in my Coloured constituency; it has some of the best soil in the Western Province. It is in the Swartland. It is situated in the granary of South Africa. But it was never developed; it lay there and it was neglected. Until 1955—and I hope you will allow me to say so—the Coloureds were used by the United Party as a football in politics but they never cared for their interests. This is proved by the fact that since 1909 the United Party never spent a single penny on these Coloured reserves. Before 1955, when the Coloureds were put on the separate voters’ roll, the United Party never on a single occasion in this House made a positive contribution in respect of the Coloureds. Sir, now on occasion we get that from the Coloureds’ Representatives who sit opposite me, but not once have we had it from the United Party. What happened is similar to what we have again seen here to-night. We are debating legislation dealing with Coloured interests, and it is a positive measure. The hon. the Deputy Minister explained all the points in the Bill and nothing is being hidden, but what is the complaint we get from the United Party? They complain that the Deputy Minister did not say enough; they are looking for things which are not contained in this Bill, and why do they do so? They do it eventually to get to the Coloured vote, as the hon. member for South Coast did when he expressed his concern in regard to the 1,500 Coloureds in Natal. He really acted here as the spokesman for those 1,500 Coloureds in Natal.

Mr. Speaker, the Coloureds will thank this Government for its positive contribution towards improving the relations between Coloureds and Whites by doing positive things for the Coloureds. But the United Party can be sure of one thing, also with regard to this Bill, namely that one day the Coloureds will get wise to them. The Coloureds will realize that the United Party are using them simply as a political football and then they will curse the United Party unto the furthermost generations. The only positive contribution, Sir, which the United Party ever made in respect of the Coloureds was to hold evening classes for them so as to learn how to sign their names in order to vote against the Nationalist Party.

I do not intend following the political trend of my young friend who has just resumed his seat. I think this matter is too weighty for us to make a party-political matter out of it. In my opinion, our approach to the non-Whites, our Coloured population, will determine what the future of the White man will be in South Africa. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, this legislation has been introduced to promote the interests of those people. It is therefore our duty on this side of the House to support him in this attempt if it is in any way possible to do so, because if he fails we fail too. It is not merely a question of his failing alone and suffering alone, or of the Nationalist Party alone suffering, but the White man generally in South Africa, and the hon. the Deputy Minister realizes that as well as I do. I am certain that he also prefers us to approach this matter from a non-party-political standpoint as far as possible.

Personally, I looked forward to having an explanation from my hon. friend of the various clauses of this Bill and the principle contained in it, because it is a very complicated piece of legislation. I do not think we can get away from that. It took various legal men weeks to ascertain precisely what is envisaged in this measure. I found it very difficult to understand it, and therefore I am sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister was so slapdash in explaining this Bill to the House.

In his speech the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) made it clear that there are many complicated clauses in this Bill which the hon. the Deputy Minister did not even touch upon. The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux), I think, said that the Deputy Minister knows so much about this Bill, that he has so many facts at his disposal, that he failed to realize that we did not have those facts. That is precisely where the danger lies, viz. that we do not have all the facts before us. That is one of the main reasons why this side of the House to-day asks for a Select Committee, so that we can become au fait with all the facts. There is no doubt that this Bill is susceptible of having what the hon. the Deputy Minister assured us is not the object of the Bill, namely that this Bill may lay the foundation for a future Colouredstan. My hon. friends say we are obsessed with the idea of Colouredstans or Bantustans. That may be so, but you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that since 1950 it was that same socio-economic development of the Bantu which eventually led to the hon. the Prime Minister telling the Natives: “You will be the masters in your own areas, to the same extent as we will be the masters in our own area.” And when we attacked our hon. friends on the point they ran away and said that it was not the intention of the Government to create Bantustans. You will remember, Sir, that Dr. Malan said that total apartheid was not a practical policy, and that the late Adv. Strijdom stated that Bantustans did not form part of the policy of the Nationalist Party.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

But in spite of that the Nationalist Party carried out those plans, and as we see it this Bill also lays the foundation for Colouredstans where the Coloureds will eventually be the masters in the areas in which they reside. But what disturbs us, Sir, is the fact that the Prime Minister recently issued a statement in regard to the interests of our Coloured population. He said inter alia that the Coloured population would also be enabled to develop in their own areas and to reach full maturity. What did the hon. the Prime Minister mean when he said that? The hon. member for Vasco (Mr. C. V. de Villiers) stated to-night that the Government had certain plans, and therefore we say that this legislation already forms the basis of Colouredstans. My hon. friend here (Mr. van Staden) said that we were just wooing the votes of the Coloureds. That was his atack on us. I think it is necessary to state precisely where the United Party stands in regard to this matter. The United Party is just as anxious as my friends opposite to do justice to the Coloured people in South Africa. This is not the first time we have said so. We stated it on various occasions in the past. We are just as anxious as that side of the House to give the Coloured people on the platteland, the rural inhabitants, an opportunity also to acquire land which they can regard as their own. But we always bear in mind the tradition, viz. residential and social segregation. Although we are prepared to assist any government to enable the rural Coloureds to acquire land, we are, however, under no circumstances prepared to cut South Africa up into little pieces. We are not prepared to establish a state within a state by giving land to the Coloureds. The land which we are prepared to give to the Coloureds will always have to remain an integral portion of the Union of South Africa.

We are not giving it to them; it is their own land.

I know, but I say that under the United Party it will always remain an integral portion of the Union of South Africa.

Order! The hon. member must come back to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with all respect, I just want to repeat that the United Party is just as anxious as the Government to assist these people to acquire land in the rural areas, but once again I want to express my disappointment that the Deputy Minister neglected to explain this Bill as he should have done. It is in order to obtain that information or explanation that this side of the House asks for the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee.

I have listened to the previous speaker who tried to prove that it is the policy of the Government to establish a Colouredstan, in the same way that we are always being accused of establishing Bantustans. When I talk about a Bantustan or a Colouredstan, I think of a consolidated area where one concentrates all the Natives or Coloureds, as the case may be, in one big consolidated area. I want to ask the hon. member whether he thinks that the Government intends by means of this Bill to establish a Colouredstan and whether he thinks that the Government seeks to do so. Does he want to tell this House that the Government intends to uproot Coloureds from all over, e.g. even the Griquas represented by the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland), and to transfer them to a Colouredstan where they are to live in future? There is no such idea; it is impracticable. At least, that is how I understand the policy of the Government in respect of the Coloureds. That is not the policy at all.

I also want to pass a few remarks in connection with the speech of the hon. member for Outeniqua, who told us the old scare story here which we often told as children when we wished to frighten our friends. We shouted “Wolf, wolf!” when we wanted to frighten them. Even when there was no wolf we made them nervous and suspicious, or we always shouted “Sic, sic!” even though there was nothing to bite them. The hon. member said that they suspected this Bill of having ulterior motives. Now if a representative of the Coloureds gets up in this House and states that he is suspicious and then plays the “Wolf, wolf!” game and makes his voters afraid of the Bill, people who do not understand it, people who will not study it and cannot understand the implications of it at all … The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) was much more practical and revealed a better understanding of the Bill than the hon. member for Outeniqua. He said that the Coloureds had long ago sent a deputation, even before the hon. the Deputy Minister occupied this post, and asked for precisely what is now provided in the Bill. I would have expected the hon. member for Outeniqua rather to have pleaded for those voters of his who live in East Griqualand, which formerly was a monarchy, and against the background of their history to have asked the hon. the Deputy Minister: What about those areas which Adam Kok, their former king, specially set aside and had surveyed as little Griqua towns which were to be developed round about Kokstad, in that old No Man’s Land? I think, for example, of a place like Rietvlei which Adam Kok laid out for the Griquas, but which in time became lost to those people.

Order! I think the hon. member’s memories are going back too far now. He should come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill might possibly also be applicable to those areas. In the course of time those areas were taken over by the Natives. I just want to refresh the memory of the hon. member for Outeniqua and mention a few places. There are places like Riverside, New Amalfi, Clydesdale, Rietvlei and others which belonged to the Griquas, but which no longer belong to them. They are a people who still have a national sentiment, and incidentally, Sir, when the Griquas speak about a national sentiment then they speak about “nasielikheid” or of “Griekwaheid”. I would like the hon. member for Outeniqua rather to play on that note and to protect the interests of those people, and not to chase up hares where there are none. He should not depict this Bill to the Coloureds as something contentious which will not be in their best interests in future.

It is perfectly clear that the object of this Bill is set out in the long title which reads “to provide for the preservation of certain traditional Coloured areas”. Now, Mr. Speaker, this Bill might be said to be like the curate’s egg; it is good in parts. We are hoping to remedy certain of the bad parts when it comes to the Committee Stage. We believe that the time is overdue when the Coloured people in the reserves should receive the attention of the Government, as is envisaged in this Bill; that they should get the benefits which are due to them and we do not wish to stultify any effort to assist the Coloured people in those areas. We believe that the long title sets out the principle, but unfortunately, Sir, the Bill itself incorporates certain provisions which in my opinion go beyond the long title. We hope therefore that the hon. the Deputy Minister will meet us by agreeing to some deletions or additions or alterations to the Bill.

It is most unfortunate that this Bill which is intended to be for the benefit fo the Coloured peoples in the reserves, should once again become the subject of a political wrangle. Hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden), have once again taken this opportunity of making political capital out of a Bill which has not any political implications, as the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) has said. May I remind the hon. member for Malmesbury that since 1909 there have been many Nationalist Party governments in power and they did not do anything for the reserves either.

What about the United Party?

The point is, Sir, that the hon. the Deputy Minister could have made it possible for this Bill to be accepted by the whole House without any political wrangle and he could have done so by meeting certain objections which were put to him. And there are many, Mr. Speaker. Let me first point out that whether it is the intention or not of the hon. the Deputy Minister, the wording of Clause 3 does indicate clearly, if you read it properly, that the Minister can on his own declare certain areas which are not traditional Coloured areas.

I have that power in the 1959 amending legislation. I have that power already.

That is the point, Sir. I am glad that I have drawn the hon. the Deputy Minister. If the hon. the Deputy Minister already has the power in terms of the 1959 amending Act then why should it be given to him in this Bill because it has nothing to do with the long title? It has nothing to do with areas traditionally Coloured. There is that suspicion that that clause may be used by future Ministers not so friendly disposed towards the Coloured people as the present Minister, for another purpose not envisaged by the Bill.

That is the old story.

Let me make it clear to the Deputy Minister that we are not opposed to the principle enshrined in this Bill but we are entitled to point out to the Deputy Minister the danger of passing an Act which may be used for purposes not envisaged at this stage. What guarantee has the Deputy Minister that future Ministers will not interpret it to the detriment of the Coloured people in the way in which I interpret it at this stage? It is therefore intended to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister at a later stage to delete the phrase.

There are one or two other aspects of the Bill which have not yet been touched upon by other members. For instance, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what he is going to do in the case of mixed marriages? What does he intend doing in the case of a European who is married to a Coloured woman in this area? Will he be regarded as a qualified person? What happens in the reverse? What happens in the case where a Coloured man is married to a White woman? There is no specific definition of “a disqualified person We know that there are cases of mixed marriages in these reserves. We know there are and they have children. Now, are these people to be regarded as disqualified persons? I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will make that clear as there is a certain amount of doubt as to whether the children of a mixed marriage will be regarded as disqualified persons and will therefore be prohibited from inheriting or acquiring the land or the business of parents who are not of the same race. I think that is one point which the hon. the Deputy Minister should clarify.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned until 21 February.