I just want to inform the House that the business for this week will be as it appears on the Order Paper, and furthermore that the Railway Estimates will now be introduced on 8th March instead of on 1st March. The reason for that is that the financial results in respect of January will not be available by 1st March, and I think it is desirable to have the latest results available before the Estimates are introduced.

Before I put clause 2 for consideration by the Committee, I wish to point out that it embodies the main principles of the Bill as read a Second Time. I would also draw the attention of hon. members to Standing Order No. 58, which provides that the principles of a Bill shall not be discussed in Committee but only the details. In accordance with practice I shall, however, allow one member of the official Opposition to state the objections of his party to this clause, but I cannot allow a general discussion on the principles of the Bill. In this connection I would also point out that the new clause 2 of which notice has been given by the hon. member for Durban (North) cannot be discussed until the clause before the Committee has been negatived. I put the clause.

In terms of your ruling, Sir, I am not able to discuss the merits of the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper on pages 105 and 106, but I hope that the hon. the Minister and this Committee will bear in mind what is on the Order Paper in dealing with the alternative to that, which is the clause as it stands. Now, also on the Order Paper is an amendment of which the hon. the Minister has given notice that he proposes to insert. That amendment, which I presume is also in order, is to provide that so far as persons who have been convicted of one of the offences listed are concerned, the court may re-admit that person to practise if a certificate is produced, signed by the Minister, to the effect that the Minister has no objection to the admission of such person. This, obviously, namely the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister and the amendment we have on the Order Paper, and the clause as it stands, reflect better than anything else the difference in approach and attitude between that side of the House and this side of the House. Our attitude is that in these matters the courts should decide. In these matters, where it is a matter of fact as to whether or not a person is a fit and proper person to practise, the proper body to decide is the court, through the judge, and in such a case it would be the full Bench of such a court, with probably two judges sitting to decide whether a person is or is not a proper person to practise.

We should like to know from the hon. the Minister—he has not yet told us—why he thinks he is a better person to judge than a judge and why he is so opposed to the attitude we have adopted and to our amendment. What is there about it that he does not like? Because our proposals are that he and his Secretary or the Attorney-General—any one of them—should have the power to go to court to ask that someone be struck off the roll because he is not a fit and proper person to practise, because of all the information he has at his disposal. Then, having regard to the merits of that information, the judge can decide. We go even further and say that before anyone shall be admitted, he shall serve notice on the Minister’s agencies and they can then examine the matter and appear before court as a party to the application for admission, and put all the information before the court, upon which the judge can then decide. The hon. the Minister has not indicated that he is prepared to accept that, but we would like to know why he is not prepared to do so. One wonders why he wants to use the court at all, because the court becomes merely a conduit pipe for whatever the hon. the Minister wants to do. It is no good the hon. the Minister smiling; it is a most serious matter to use our courts for this purpose, our courts which over the centuries have been charged with determining what the facts are. They know best how to determine the facts; they have been trained over the centuries how to set about determining facts in accordance with rules which have developed over centuries.

How does the hon. the Minister determine the facts? The hon. the Minister is sitting where he is with the power he has simply because he is a member of the Nationalist Party; simply because he is a politician and in determining all the things that he has to do he is motivated by the fact that he is a member of the Nationalist Party, that he is a politician. Surely in the determination of facts as important as these we should use the agencies which over the centuries have been found to be the proper agencies, agencies which have no interest in the matter and which can look at the facts and the merits dispassionately, impartially and judicially. What does the hon. the Minister think he has that the judges do not have? Why is it that he wants to exclude them from this? Quite apart from that, there have been Ministers of Justice before this hon. Minister who did not even know the difference between Swaziland and Bechuanaland, and I am sure that most of our judges do. Why does the hon. the Minister refuse to allow the courts to determine who their own officers shall be? We are dealing here with officers of the court. Surely the hon. the Minister is going to be guided by his security file; he is going to be guided by the information he has. He is not going to call all these persons before him and cross-examine them. How can he have any information to cross-examine them? The only information he has is the information in his files; there is nobody on the other side with different information who can cross-examine those persons whose evidence and information he has to deal with. Surely the hon. the Minister appreciates this. Sir, what interests me is that the hon. the Minister has given notice of an amendment which accepts that at a certain time a person convicted of certain offences, a person who has been listed, may in the fullness of time so have changed his approach to life that he may be considered a fit and proper person to practise. If the hon. the Minister concedes that, as he does in his amendment, then surely the best person to judge who is a fit and proper person to be an officer of the court is the court itself. I want to say to the hon. the Minister in all sincerity that this goes much further than merely the question as to who is going to practise. You are dealing here with a basic constitutional institution, an institution which is basic to our whole constitution; it is basic to our whole attitude to the things that we have been talking about, namely Communism and democracy. Without the courts which we have in this country we have no democracy; without the courts we have in this country we are no different from any totalitarian country. The hon. the Minister is fiddling with that institution; he is fiddling with our courts, and I say that because he is fiddling with the future membership of our courts. Our courts are going to be comprised of senior members of the legal profession. That is the system we have and that is why we have the Bench we have, and, Sir, when the chairman of the General Council of the Bar, speaking in his capacity as the chairman of the Natal Society of Advocates and on behalf of the Natal, the Johannesburg and the Cape Bar Councils, Says that they believe “that the effect of the Bill if passed into law may be to inhibit the proper performance by members of the legal profession of their duty fearlessly to present the interests of their clients, no matter how unpopular their clients’ cause, no matter how powerful or influential the opposition may be”, then we are dealing with something far more basic than just whether or not certain individuals should be allowed to practise or not. Why does the hon. the Minister think we have this profession? Why do the advocates and attorneys pursue their clients’ interests fearlessly in the best interest of this profession? Because they know that their behaviour in the presentation of their clients’ cases in the courts will be judged by the courts who are not motivated by political considerations. Sir, during the second reading debate the hon. the member for Potchefstroom had the impertinence to say that he would not take instructions in relation to anyone charged with subversive activities. Sir, does that not illustrate exactly what is at stake here? The hon. member will not do it. Why not? Because he is motivated by political considerations; he will not do it because it may reflect on him politically. [Time expired.]

Before I reply to the hon. member for Durban (North), I just want to move the amendment as printed in my name—

In his speech the hon. member for Durban (North) of course attacked the principle of this particular clause once again, and that is where we differ. The hon. member wants the court and the court only to decide who may practise. Our attitude is that we should be able to prescribe to the court who may or may not be admitted as advocates or attorneys. We prescribe to the court what qualifications a legal practitioner must have before he can be admitted to the courts to practise, and we are also entitled to prescribe to the court under what circumstances it may not allow certain persons to practise; that is our fundamental premise.

As regards the amendment I have moved, it has been brought to my attention that it may happen that a person who was convicted of one of the offences mentioned in clause 2 changes his views completely in the course of the years, but if the clause remains as it reads at present, such a person can never again be admitted. I felt that that was unfair, and it is for that reason that I am moving this amendment. That relates to persons who have committed offences mentioned in clause 2. As far as listed persons are concerned, the Minister still has the power, if he is convinced that there has indeed been a change in the views of such a listed person, to remove his name from the list, and as soon as his name has been removed from the list, he is free to apply to the court for admission.

The hon. member asked why the decision was not left to the courts; why I, a politician, should make the decision. For the simple reason that I as a politician and the Party to which I belong have decided that we want to destroy Communism root and branch; that is the sole reason. Since neither the Bar Council nor the Law Societies have ever taken action against a listed communist, we feel that the time has now come to prescribe to the courts and to say: “In future you may not allow a man to practise in court, one of the best institutions in this country, if he has committed one of the above-mentioned offences.” In my Second Reading speech I read a list of the offences to hon. members. These are very grave offences. In the first place the person must be a listed communist. A person is not listed before he has had an opportunity to be tried. He can take his case to court and prove to the court that his name has been listed wrongfully.

Under what circumstances?

There is nothing that prevents him from going to court.

On what grounds?

On the grounds that he is wrongfully listed.

No.

Then there is the other group which consists of people who have been convicted of furthering the objects of Communism. From the outset hon. members on the opposite side have told me that they are as much opposed to Communism as we are. In this case the person concerned has been convicted of furthering the objects of Communism. He has been convicted of that. In other words, he has been before the court. He could have submitted anything to say: “I have never furthered the objects of Communism.”

Nobody is complaining about that.

Nobody is complaining about that? The entire argument of the hon. member for Durban (North) related to that. The second offence is that he has advocated, furthered, advised, defended or encouraged any of the objects of Communism. Hon. members on the opposite side have told me that they are as much opposed to Communism as hon. members on this side of the House. After the man has been tried and convicted of advocating, furthering, advising, defending or encouraging Communism, then only will he be prohibited in terms of this measure from practising. Then only will the court be instructed not to accept him.

The third offence is that while resident in or outside the Republic he advocated, advised, defended or encouraged the use of force, with the assistance of a foreign government or organization, to bring about a change in the political, industrial, social or economic pattern in the Republic, or that he thus furthered any of the objects of Communism. Do you feel that that is the type of person who should practise in our courts? A man who called for foreign assistance to bring about a change in the political, economic or social structure of our country? Is that the kind of man we should allow to practise in our courts? I say “no”. We cannot allow that.

The fourth offence is that while resident in the Republic, he underwent training or consented to undergo such training, or encouraged or procured someone else to undergo such training, or obtained any information which may be instrumental in realizing the objects of Communism or of an illegal organization. Hon. members tell me that they are just as much opposed to Communism as we are. If that is the case and we come across this type of man, and this type of man is tried and convicted by a court, then I say that he is not a proper person to practise in our courts. That is the reply. There is no further dispute. It is not that I, as a politician, would pretend to be cleverer than a judge, but those people have had a fair chance. The Opposition agree with us that they are also opposed to Communism, just as we are. These four offences that have been committed are clearly communistically orientated offences. They should be contented that we prohibit this type of person. Now I said that all that is wrong with this provision is the point made by the hon. member for Transkei, namely that once a man has been convicted, it is for good. Then he is done with for good; after that he dare not practise again. Therefore I want to make this concession. I think the Opposition should receive it with acclamation. They should not argue against it.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister, when he said the other day that he was going to bring forward this amendment, said that it was as a result of a point I had made in the previous debate, namely that once an attorney or barrister was convicted of an offence, he could never repent or reform. He would be excluded from practising. The Minister said that he realized afterwards that it was a fair criticism to make and therefore he was going to introduce this amendment. Naturally, we accept the amendment. He need not worry about that. What we do resent is the attack that the Minister has made on us on the grounds of supporting Communism. The Minister says that we say that we on this side of the House are opposed to Communism just as the members on that side are. We say it because we mean it. It is true. They know very well that it is true. If the members on the Government benches go back and read the history of the anti-communist legislation in this House, they will see what we proposed when the first legislation was introduced. What did we propose then?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to go back now and say what the United Party’s attitude was in regard to Communism?

The hon. member may continue. I shall decide when to stop him.

The Minister, in pursuing that argument, said that if that was so, he wanted to know why we were opposed to the prohibition of certain types of communists who commit offences listed in this Bill. He proceeded to read out the offences as set out in this amendment. They are serious offences. We supported the legislation making those particular offences punishable at law because we will have no truck with people who commit that type of offence. The Minister now very cleverly says that because we want the court to decide whether a man must be struck off the roll or not, we are not opposed to people of this nature, criminals, practising in our courts. When we moved our amendment at the Second Reading, we took the line and made it quite clear that commission of offences of this nature should be grounds for excluding a practitioner. We made that quite clear. If the hon. the Minister reads the amendment on the Order Paper which was to be moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (North), he will see that we give an instruction to the courts that they shall regard these offences …

Order! I gave my ruling before this debate started that reference to the question of the principle whether the courts should do it or whether the Minister should do it cannot be allowed now. The question was settled at the Second Reading.

On a point of order, Sir, the Minister, in moving his amendment, attacked this side of the House and raised this very question of the offences.

The Minister replied to the hon. member for Durban (North).

But, Sir, the Minister’s amendment has to do with these particular offences. That is all the Minister’s amendment deals with. The Minister’s amendment enumerates these particular offences. The Minister himself dealt with them in detail. Surely I am also allowed to deal with them?

The hon. member is not allowed to ask that we should revert to the question of their amendment at the Second Reading, namely the question of whether the court should decide or not.

Sir, I am merely reverting to the amendment as printed on the Order Paper, to show our attitude in reply to the Minister’s allegations against this side of the House.

That is a rehash of the Second Reading amendment, which has been rejected.

No, Sir, I am talking about the amendment to this clause.

Exactly. This amendment on the Order Paper is a rehash of the Second Reading amendment.

I do not wish to deal with that amendment any more. I merely referred to it in reply to the Minister. The Minister himself realizes that the mere commission of an offence of this nature is not sufficient to exclude a man from practising. That is why he has moved this amendment, which we are asked to support, which entitles him to give a certificate to a person convicted of the offence, saying that he has no objection to his practising. That is the line which we have taken, namely that although a man may have committed an offence of this nature, as set out in the Bill, he may have repented. Therefore it must be left to the court to decide …

Order! The hon. member is again referring to the courts. I am not going to allow that. If the hon. member keeps on doing so, I shall ask him to resume his seat.

All I say is that the Minister, in moving this amendment, has accepted our argument that some further consideration should be given to whether these people should be allowed to practise or not.

Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister some practical difficulties which I see in the details of this particular provision. I want to do so as a practical lawyer because when one looks at the mechanics of the provisions which we are now legislating, we find that clause 2 provides that no person shall be admitted by the court unless such person has satisfied the court that his name does not appear on any list and that he has not been convicted of certain offences. Until he does so he shall not practise. No person shall admit to practice any person who is unable to satisfy the court on those prerequisites. How would this be done in practice? How would this be done under this section which is being inserted in the Act of 1950? It seems to me that it would be done by a statement by an applicant applying for admission to the Bar or Side-Bar. He would apply and say, “I am not a listed person and I have not been convicted of any of these offences.” He would attest to this in his petition. Now where does the responsibility to verify this statement in terms of the legislation which is now before us? As the hon. the Minister said at the commencement of this debate, neither the Bar Council nor the Law Society wish to have this provision introduced into their controlling legislation. No responsibility rests on either of them to investigate the allegation contained in the petition. There is certainly no responsibility on every Judge of the Supreme Court or every Registrar of the Supreme Court in terms of any law to maintain for all time lists of listed persons or lists of persons who have previous convictions with an obligation to check a petition against those lists. One can for instance take the example of an individual who ten years after a conviction or ten years after listing and who is a professed communist but who has laid low for ten years, then proceeds to court and makes an application for admission to the Bar or Side-Bar. He obtains a letter typed on the Department of Justice letter-head to confirm that he is not a listed person. He has this in his possession. He then presents a petition to the court asking for admission. Whose responsibility is it to investigate whether or not that man is entitled to admission? I return to what the hon. the Minister has said, and to this difficulty in interpreting the details, namely that he imposes no responsibility on either the Bar Council or the Law Society. The papers are not served on the Secretary for Justice. The application for admission is not served on the Attorney-General. There is no provision for that. They are served merely on the societies and lodged with the Registrar. What is more, on the assumption that a person in these circumstances obtains his admission to the courts, who is then to remove him? He is entitled to practise until such time as the Secretary for Justice under this particular section applies to the court to have him removed at some time in the future. What happens during that period? He incurs no penalties whatsoever. This is legislation in a vacuum. There are no penalties for a man who has obtained his admission to the Bar or the Side-Bar in that way. There is no provision here for a penalty and as soon as he finds that somebody is on his track he will do a Wolpe or a Goldreich and disappear out of the clutches of the police.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I have studied this clause as best I can to find how one would apply the provisions before us. It is all very well legislating to-day when the hon. the Minister can read out the list of 18 people, most of whom have disappeared already, and the Secretary for Justice can apply to have them removed from the roll. But what happens in ten years’ time? Some young man who might now be on the list of the Defence and Aid Fund or some such body will in ten years’ time apply for admission to the Bar. He will by then have finished his university education. He will have lain low and have not practised Communism in the meantime. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that at the most such an applicant might face a perjury charge in that he has attested to something in his petition which is false. But if he has been presented by some conspirator with a faked letter ostensibly from the Department of Justice stating that he is not on the list, confirmed by a name signed at the bottom, and he produces that at the perjury trial, will he suffer any penalty? I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that as I am not permitted to talk about amendments which are unacceptable, and I do this in all sincerity, that he looks at pages 105 and 106 of the Minutes of Proceedings and he will find some way in which this Bill might be amended in the Senate or he might withdraw this provision before it is passed by this House and thus make practical legislation and not enact provisions which have no effect whatever. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me whose responsibility it is to verify a petition at the present time and to see whether there is a contravention of this section.

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the hon. member of the Opposition who spoke on this matter, I was struck, firstly, by the fact that the hon. member who has just sat down spoke about a lack of what he called the “mechanics to put this Bill into operation”, while the hon. member who spoke just before him complained that the discretion was being taken away from the courts. I should just like to say something in this regard. The clause states explicitly that the person has to satisfy the court. Do we want to prescribe to the court the “mechanics” of this process of satisfying itself, because there would then surely remain nothing of the court’s discretion? I think we would do well to come back at this stage to the crux of the matter, which the hon. the Minister has also emphasized. The crux of the matter is that this House has accepted the principle and has found that it is the will of this House and the will of the people that persons who commit these offences and whose names appear on these lists may not be qualified to practise in the legal profession. There has in fact been abundant proof of that, because the people and we believe that such persons can and will abuse that position to further Communism. That is the crux of the matter.

We now find that three categories are proposed in the amendment of the hon. the Minister, as it is before the House. As the Minister has pointed out, three possibilities of being removed from the list are open to the listed man, i.e. either by the liquidator, or by instruction of the Minister, or by court action. We therefore have the listed persons, the convicted persons who have had a full trial and, thirdly, those people whom the hon. member for Musgrave called “a genuine case of reformation”. The latter are now also covered. Persons in all these categories, who may have experienced difficulties, are now fully covered. Now we must ask a question. All the Opposition’s objections have been met here. At the Second Reading they said that their essential objection was to this section, and that it had not been met. It is a pity that we cannot discuss certain pages of the Minutes now, and that we cannot debate the merits of the amendment that was moved. I should have liked to do so. But we must point out that what is expected of the court, in terms of the provision, is that it should satisfy itself.

The task of the court is therefore to implement the prescriptions of this House of Assembly and of Parliament as a whole, but not through the loss of its discretion. Therefore the court must simply satisfy itself by taking cognizance of certain facts which the Parliament of this country regards either as a qualification or as a disqualification. The court must therefore exercise its discretion in satisfying itself. It must therefore weigh these facts. These are facts which must be weighed, namely whether the man was guilty of these offences, whether he was listed and whether he has the certificate from the Minister. When we come to those basic principles and when the Opposition allege that they are on our side in the battle against Communism, and when we recall that during the Second Reading the hon. member for Transkei claimed for the Opposition the title “watchdogs of the nation”, then I want to put a question to these watchdogs. I want to ask hon. members the question whether we are not now dealing with watchdogs which are merely prepared to bark, but which are too scared to bite the communist for fear of hurting him. That is the fundamental difference between us. We on this side are prepared to get a grip on communists in the legal profession by means of this section. But hon. members on the opposite side are prepared to hide behind the defence of “please, courts, relieve us of our political responsibility, help us to get away from our political responsibility. Please, courts, will you not do our work for us?”

Order! The hon. member must rather resume his seat, because he is making a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Chairman, most of the debate on this clause up to now has largely been devoted to convicted persons, namely persons who have been convicted of any of the specific crimes under section 11 (a), (b), (b)bis, ter or (c). Not so much, however, has been said by the hon. the Minister about those persons whose names appear on any list. I want to devote myself to that detail of this clause, without arguing the principle of whether or not the court shall decide who shall be admitted or not be admitted to practise at the Bar or the Side-Bar.

I want to ask the Minister why he has included this category of people at all in this clause. Because, Sir, it seems to me that if one examines in any detail the type of offence of which a person must actually have been convicted in a court of law under the latter part of the clause, the Minister was intending to make the restrictions of this particular clause really pertain to persons who had been convicted of a fairly serious crime under the Suppression of Communism Act. The Minister has read out a list of crimes mentioned in this particular clause. But now he also includes in this clause persons whose names appear on any list under section eight. I want to ask him whether he is not linking together classes of people in quite different categories of gravity of crimes committed under the Suppression of Communism Act, and whether he would not consider omitting from this clause altogether the persons on the list and simply confining it to people who have actually been convicted in a court of law of crimes under section eleven of the Suppression of Communism Act. I do not think that I will be out of order, and I ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

Order! The hon. member is out of order.

Am I out of order in asking that a detail, because this is only part …

It is not a detail. It is a matter of principle whether listed people should be practising or not.

Well, Sir, as far as I am concerned, I find it very difficult to understand how one can discuss this clause at all if one may not move to omit part of the clause while leaving the other major part of the clause.

Order! Provided that part of the clause is not the part containing the principle of the clause, the hon. member may do so.

There are only two sections to this clause. The one refers to listed people and the other refers to people convicted of crimes under section eleven. I want to move the deletion of part of it, and leave the other part in the clause, not that I am not in any case going to vote against it. But I wish to narrow the ambit of this clause. On a point of order, Sir, am I not allowed to do that at the committee stage?

Order! No, not when the amendment affects the principle directly.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, if this Committee is entitled to delete the whole of this clause then, in my submission, it must be entitled to delete a part of this clause.

The Committee must vote against the clause, and the outcome of the vote we can only see after the voting has taken place.

If I may further address you on this matter: If in principle the Committee is entitled to delete the whole clause, then the Committee is entitled to decide whether it wishes to delete only a part of it. With the greatest respect—and I am sure you will agree—we cannot decide now how the voting is going to be. It may be that the persuasion of the arguments which are to be heard in this Committee may persuade some of the hon. members of the Committee to delete the whole of the clause. And if it is entitled to delete the whole clause, I do submit that it is entitled to delete only a part. I submit that an amendment such as the hon. member for Houghton has proposed, namely to exclude listed persons from those who are prohibited from practising in the profession, would be in order.

The question of listed persons is the main principle in the whole Communism Act. If that part is deleted, then the main principle of the Act is destroyed.

Mr. Chairman, may I continue on this point of order? If we could vote, as the hon. member has said, to delete the entire clause, surely we may vote to delete part of the clause. I should like to move the following amendment, for your consideration, to clause 2, namely—

In other words, I am moving to omit listed persons.

The principle has been accepted.

No, may I argue that we can vote against this whole clause, if we wish to, in Committee? Because I want to try to at least mitigate the damage which can be done by this clause and vote against part of it.

You can only vote it down, you cannot discuss it now.

You are not the Chairman.

The hon. member can first finish her speech and then let me see her amendment.

Mr. Chairman, may I bring the amendment to you now and then finish my speech?

That will be in order.

The reason why I move this amendment is because the listing part of this particular clause goes very far indeed. The part that relates to persons actually convicted under the anti-Communist Act does at least have the grace to say that the person has appeared in a court of law and been given a chance to defend himself and he also knows exactly what he is charged with. But as far as listed persons are concerned, the only protection that they have under section 4 (10) of the Suppression of Communism Act is that the name of a person shall not be included in any such list or in any category mentioned in the list unless he has been afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing that his name should not be included therein. It is true that such a person is given an opportunity of showing that his name should not be included in the list. But the list itself goes very far because it enables the Liquidator to compile a list of persons who are, or who have at any time—again retrospective—before or after the commencement of this Act, been not only office-bearers or officers or members of an organization which subsequently is declared an illegal organization, but even if they have been active supporters of such an organization. There must have been many lawyers—because fortunately they do not all adopt the attitude of the hon. member for Potchefstroom—who supported a banned organization like the Defence and Aid Fund, believing it to be a perfectly legal organization which assisted in the defence of people accused of certain crimes. Unlike the hon. member, there were lawyers who, even if they were not prepared to take on cases to defend such people—and unfortunately there were many lawyers who refused such cases—were nevertheless prepared to give something, a subscription, in order to enable this organization to carry on.

Now it means that any person who actually gave such money is or was in fact an active supporter of an organization which was subsequently declared to be illegal, and may have the opportunity of presenting himself before the hon. the Minister, but he could not prove that he did not in fact support such an organization. Therefore this is much more far-reaching in its implications than the section of the clause dealing with persons convicted under the Suppression of Communism Act. I want to go further. This is also the intimidatory part of the clause, because it means that in future every lawyer or would-be lawyer—because it would also relate to law students—would have to think twice before supporting any political organization at all, in the fear that some time in the future that perfectly legal political organization could be declared illegal. [Interjections.] Oh yes, this could happen. I wish I could be as confident in regard to the intentions of the Government as the hon. member behind me is, but I am not. I know that there can be organizations which subsequently can be declared to be illegal, and which in retrospect could jeopardize the future of every practising lawyer and every intending law student who supported them, and therefore it must inhibit him from taking part in such activities. [Time expired.]

I have considered this amendment, but I am afraid I cannot allow it, because it is destructive of the whole basic principle of the Bill as read a second time.

The hon. the Minister, when he was speaking this afternoon, made a most important statement on the subject of a listed person’s right of appeal to the courts. It is a most important statement and I want to deal with it now in some detail because I believe that the hon. the Minister is quite wrong in the statement he made to the Committee this afternoon, and being wrong on such an important matter amounts to a very serious misrepresentation, although I accept that the Minister did not do so deliberately.

Order! The hon. member cannot use the word “misrepresentation”. He was ordered to withdraw it by the Speaker last week, and the hon. member must withdraw it now.

If you order me to do so, I withdraw the word and I would then say that he has misinterpreted the legal position to this Committee. The hon. the Minister led this Committee to believe that if a person has been placed on a list and he has applied to the Minister to have his name removed and the Minister has refused to do so. that man can then appeal to the courts. This is what he said, and the Minister now nods his head confirming that this is what he said. He can appeal to the courts. Let us get this quite correct. An appeal, as opposed to a review, amounts to a re-hearing. In other words, the listed person can then call upon the Minister to justify the fact that he is kept on that list. Now I challenge the Minister to tell the Committee in terms of what section or sections a listed person has a right of appeal to the courts to be removed from the list. I challenge him to disclose that section and I suggest that the hon. the Minister is quite wrong, because there is no such right of appeal. At the very most, a listed person has no more than a right to apply to the courts on review. The right of review is something quite different from the right of appeal, because under a review the court is not entitled to go into the merits. In other words, the court is not entitled to decide whether or not that person should be on the list. All that the court can decide in a review is whether or not the person whose decision is being challenged, namely in this instance the Minister, has acted mala fide or bona fide. This is an extremely limited right because it is virtually impossible for anyone to prove that an official, acting under such powers, has acted mala fide. So, to suggest that a listed person who has appealed to the Minister and who has been rejected is protected because he has the right of appeal is, in my submission, quite wrong, and I trust that the Minister will clarify this statement, not only for the benefit of this House but also for the benefit of the persons concerned.

Or will he amend the law?

Yes, perhaps the Minister will consider amending the law to give listed persons the right of appeal. I am sure that if a listed person had a full right of appeal to the courts …

Order! The hon. member is back on the issue which was settled at the Second Reading.

In maintaining the Government’s attitude to the clause as it stands, subject to the amendment moved by the Minister, the Minister emphasized that a listed person had this right of appeal, suggesting that he had this very important protection. This was one of the important grounds upon which the Minister maintained the Government’s stand in regard to this clause. For that reason I respectfully submit to you. Sir, that I should be given the right to deal with this in detail. However, I have made my submissions and I do not want to take them any further.

I now wish to deal with another point raised by the hon. the Minister. The Minister stated that during the Second Reading we on this side of the House had made our position quite clear in regard to Communism; we stated that we were as strongly opposed to Communism as the Government is, and he then went on to say that this being the case he could not understand why we maintained our objection. Sir, the reason is quite simple. We are adamant in our attitude that an avowed Communist is unfit to practise in our courts and that therefore this ought to be ground upon which a judge should exercise his discretion. But the important point of difference between the Government and us is as to who is going to decide who is a Communist or who is not. In our submission, it is quite wrong that the decision should be taken by the hon. the Minister or by an official.

Order! That point has been made for the last 17 years in every debate of this sort I have listened to, but it has been rejected as a principle of the Bill.

On a point of order, that point was made in the second reading.

It was made in the second reading, but it was rejected.

With respect, the point is that it does not matter whether it was made at the Second Reading. Surely the hon. member is entitled to raise it now.

I stated in the beginning that I would allow one speech on the principle, and that speech has already been made by the hon. member for Durban (North).

I abide by your ruling, Sir. I now wish to go on to the point made by the hon. member for Odendaalsrus to the effect that all the objections of the Opposition fall away by reason of the hon. the Minister’s amendment. This, of course, is quite incorrect for two reasons. The amendment moved by the hon. the Minister has no bearing at all, firstly, on this question as to who shall decide who is or who is not a communist and, secondly, the hon. member for Odendaalsrus says that it will deal with the objection which I personally made that persons who have genuinely reformed should be able to approach the courts to be reinstated. He says that this in fact can now be done. But I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that a person in that category who has genuinely reformed can only apply to the court if he can get a certificate from the Minister. In other words, the power still remains in the hands of the Minister, and if the Minister refuses there is no right of appeal. So our objections are not met at all by the hon. the Minister’s amendment. I concede that the amendment is a slight improvement on the clause as it stood before, but it certainly does not meet the objections which we on this side of the House have raised to this clause. For all these reasons we are still very much opposed to this clause and we will vote against it.

I wish to deal with only one point raised by the hon. member who has just sat down. The hon. member says that there is no recourse to the courts of law against the decision of the liquidator.

No right of appeal against his decision.

I wish to refer the hon. member to the case of Gool v. the Minister of Justice, 1965 C.P.D., in which it was clearly held that there must be a full investigation of all the facts before a court will come to a decision. Like the hon. member I too thought at first that it was merely a matter of review, as we all understand that word, but I went into the matter and found that in Gool v. the Minister of Justice a full Bench of the C.P.D. decided that there must be a full investigation into all the facts on which the liquidator came to the decision and that the court then had a duty to make a fresh finding as to whether the liquidator’s decision was correct or not. It is quite correct that there is an onus on the listed person. The Act shifts the onus, because the listed person must show why his name should not be on the list, but he has full recourse to the courts and every right to adduce evidence to show why he should not be listed, and it will then be the duty of the liquidator to place the evidence at his disposal before the court so as to enable the court to judge whether the person’s name should remain on the list or not. The hon. the Minister was quite correct therefore in saying that there is recourse to the courts. Admittedly there is a shifting of the onus but the listed person has a full opportunity of bringing the facts of his case to the notice of the court.

As far as I can remember the hon. the Minister did not mention an appeal, and if he did mention an appeal, he was quite probably referring to section 8bis (iii) of the Act. In my humble opinion section 8bis (iii) provides that a listed person shall be entitled to bring an action against the Minister for the removal of his name from the list within 12 months. That is not an appeal against the listing of his name, of course. He may then institute an action against the liquidator.

But the Minister said that was not an appeal.

It virtually amounts to an appeal. There is a difference as far as the onus is concerned, and I want to make the very point that the reason why this section provides that a person shall have the right to bring an action against the liquidator is to place the onus on him and to force him to give evidence. In other words, a listed person has the right to go to court if he is dissatisfied with the fact that his name is listed.

Then I just want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member expressed the opinion that it is possible for a person who is quite innocent to be listed. If that is the case, he is fully entitled to submit reasons to the liquidator why his name should not appear on the list. I want to put it this way to the hon. member for Houghton: Let us presume a person is innocent and will be able to prove his innocence to the liquidator. The hon. member for Houghton may not share my confidence, but I am fully confident that in such circumstances, where the innocence of the person is established, the liquidator will not put his name on the list. But he can go even further. Let us presume for the moment that a person’s name has been put on the list and that he did not avail himself of his right, within the prescribed time, to submit reasons why his name should not have been placed on the list. He may then still apply to the Minister for the removal of his name from the list. Let us presume a person really was innocent. I am fully confident that if his name was placed on the list in error or by accident and he asks the Minister to remove his name and is able to prove his innocence to the Minister, his name will be removed from the list. But let us go further. Let us presume, for example, that the listed person is a person like the hon. member for Houghton, and has no confidence in the Minister …

Do not make mischief between the Minister and me.

… then in terms of this section to which I have referred, he may institute an action against the liquidator within 12 months after his name has been placed on the list, and then he can prove that he should not have been listed. But let me go a step further.

Order! The hon. member is now straying somewhat too far from the point.

With due respect, Sir, I am just dealing with this clause.

I see no mention in this clause of all the steps mentioned by the hon. member.

Surely that is part of the clause; that is how a person’s name is listed. I am merely explaining to the Committee how such a person’s name may be removed from the list.

As regards the organization, the hon. member for Houghton should not forget that an organization which is declared an unlawful organization is one which is furthering the objects of Communism. In other words, when a person is listed he has through his actions, not merely in his mind, but through his actions, supported a communistic organization, and that is why his name was placed on the list. That is the position in terms of the Act; the organization concerned must be an organization which furthered the objects of Communism. Mr. Chairman, if one has regard to all these matters, this clause is quite in order and the individual has ample opportunities to safeguard himself from any injustice.

Then I just want to refer to what was said here by the hon. member for Green Point, who spoke of “the mechanics of the Act”. It is quite clear that when the court has to satisfy itself as regards a person’s application for admission as an advocate, the court must ask at once whether documents have been served on the Secretary for Justice, because the Secretary for Justice has an interest in the matter; the Secretary for Justice is the person who will be able to say whether an offence in terms of the Act has been committed and whether the person concerned has been listed. Therefore the documents will necessarily have to be served on the Secretary for Justice, and thus the court will have all the facts before it to be able to ascertain whether or not the person’s application should be granted.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister seems determined to maintain the powers that this clause will give him, powers which the court formerly exercised, but I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will give us some indication as to how he proposes to exercise the power which he seeks in terms of the amendment which he has proposed to the Committee (which we did not deal with during the Second Reading because it was not part of the Bill) and whether he will indicate to us just how he is going to decide whether a person who has been convicted of an offence—one of the offences he has read out to us in great detail—has suddenly become a fit and proper person to practise either as an advocate, an attorney, a notary or a conveyancer. We should like to know what sort of principles the hon. the Minister is going to apply. In the past the courts have held that they have the power, in dealing with such matters as whether a person is a fit and proper person, not only to deal with his professional misconduct. The hon. the Minister is not going to be concerned here with professional misconduct at all. He is going to be concerned with the question of a person who has been convicted of an offence and who has become a person who is not a fit and proper person because of the commission of this offence. He is then going to decide when and how he becomes a fit and proper person to practise in the profession.

In the case of Matthews against the Cape Law Society, in a Cape provincial decision, reported in South African Law Reports, 1956, Vol. I, on page 807, the Judge President of the Cape approved of the statement of Lopes, Lord Justice, in an English case, as follows:

This is very important. As the Minister will appreciate, this is the power the court has even to-day. The Lord Justice continued:

This is the test. What is going to motivate the hon. the Minister? It seems to me as though he is going to have two decisions to make. The first one is to entertain the thought that such a person should be relieved of the pressures which are present upon him. Probably he will be on the list in any event. The hon. the Minister said in relation to the list that if the person has a change of heart, he will take him off the list. The person has to have a change of heart, presumably, and also he has to be a fit and proper person to practise. When the hon. the Minister moved his amendment, he did not indicate to us on what sort of basis he was going to exercise this power. We should like to hear from the hon. the Minister exactly what it is that he proposes. This is rather important. I do not think we can ever forget, in dealing with this subject, what the three major Bars of the country have to say in their joint statement about the inhibition of the proper performance of the duties of members of the profession. Members of the profession to-day, in terms of what I have just read, know that the court will or will not strike them off according to whether their behaviour was such as befitted or did not befit a member of the profession. Because of that, they were able fearlessly to conduct their affairs. They were able fearlessly to conduct the affairs of their clients. The public knew that they could employ a lawyer and that he would fight to the end for the justice of their cause.

Order! The hon. member is not abiding by my ruling. The hon. member must accept that this question of the court has been dealt with during the Second Reading, and it is finished.

What I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate to the Committee is, having regard to the effect this has on the fearless conduct of members of the profession in their duties, when he will in fact allow them to practise again.

Order! The hon. member has put that same question in the same wording five times during this short speech of his. Will he please resume his seat?

Sir, I believe it is the only effective way to get an answer from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, before I reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Durban (North), I just want to ask the hon. member for Houghton: If her idea is accepted, what am I to do with these 16 listed persons? I am speaking of the 16 listed advocates and attorneys whose names I read out to the House the other day. They are all listed persons. The time they had to apply to the court has expired. I am deliberately using the word “apply” and not the word “appeal”. Their names could be removed from the list only if they turned to me and if I as Minister deemed it proper—as we have deemed it proper in three cases—to accede to their request. The three cases to which I am referring are those of advocate Findlay and the two Snitchers, the attorney and the advocate. If we adopted that line of thinking such persons could no longer be removed. They would then be entitled to remain for ever. They were the arch-enemies. These 16 people were the arch-enemies and the greatest supporters of subversion. If we accepted her line of thinking it would mean that they would remain on the list for good and for ever, and that it would be possible for them to practise at any time, except in three cases. They have committed an offence. Nelson Mandela committed an offence. Nokwe committed an offence and Arenstein committed an offence. In the other cases the people did not commit offences. They were listed communists. If we accepted that line of thinking, they would remain there for good and for ever.

Would the hon. the Minister tell me something about the others? This is what worries me. There are two types of listed persons concerned in this particular clause. There are people listed as communists and people who might be listed because they were at one time or another supporters of what was a legal organization when they supported it, and subsequently became an illegal organization.

I have already included the name of one of them in the fist of 16 names. That one is Mr. Alexander Hepple. He belonged to the Congress of Democrats, which was a completely lawful organization at one stage. It was subsequently declared unlawful and a liquidator was appointed and drew up a fist.

Then there is another one.

No, there is not another one. In future further organizations may be declared unlawful. The Defence and Aid Fund was declared unlawful and its position is now subject to appeal. It does not necessarily follow that a list has to be drawn up. I say it does not necessarily follow. Various other organizations have been declared unlawful. The P.A.C. and the A.N.C. were declared unlawful, and in their cases no lists were drawn up. A liquidator will be appointed and a list drawn up only in the case of those which were essentially communistic under some other name, such as the Congress of Democrats.

I wish to ask the hon. the Minister a question in connection with the point he has just made now that a list need not be drawn up in connection with an organization which may subsequently be banned in the future. Does that also apply to the list referred to in clause 1?

It also applies to that, but not necessarily. It could apply to that.

*Mr. Chairman, to reply to the hon. member for Durban (North) is rather difficult, because he jumped about a good deal. If I understood him correctly, he asked what my procedure was going to be in the case of a man who has suddenly turned away from Communism. I can assure the hon. member that that will not happen suddenly. It will have to happen over a very long period. He will have to prove over years that he has changed his convictions and changed his evil ways. Then we may have the case of the man who experiences a sincere change of convictions and who perceives that his former ways were wrong. In such a case, despite the fact that he had been convicted, I would not for my part prevent him from applying to the court. Whether the court will then admit him “as being a fit and proper person” rests with the court. That is no concern of mine. My concern extends only as far as the restriction that I place on the court. I have eliminated that.

I do not think there are any further matters to which I have to reply except, as the hon. member for Sunnyside pointed out, that if we look at section 8bis which provides, in the Afrikaans text, “die juistheid van ’n lys word vermoed” and in English “the correctness of a list is presumed”, then, in subsection (3) of section 8bis, one finds the following stipulation: “proceedings in any court for the removal of the name of any person from any list referred to in subsection (2) shall be instituted by way of action only.” That institutes the action. The action is instituted against the liquidator. Section 8, subsection (3), reads as follows—

It is in view of this provision that I said that in future the person who changes his ways will be able, in the first place, to submit his case to the liquidator, and in the second place he will be able to appeal from the liquidator to the court, and in the third place he will be able to appeal to the Minister. I think that answers all the questions from the opposite side.

Mr. Chairman, we have now been told that this, right of appeal about which the hon. the Minister spoke, is embodied in section 8bis (3). But this, with respect to the hon. the Minister, does not give any right of appeal. This is precisely the point which I was making. All that there is a right to take the decision on review on the grounds purely of male fide. The proceedings must be instituted by way of action but the point is that this is merely the method by which you bring it before the courts. There is absolutely nothing in section 8bis which gives such a person a right of appeal. Not one single word in section 8bis deals with a right of appeal.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Omaruru refers to Gool’s case and significantly he did not read to this House the passage to which he refers. I do not have Gool’s case before me to refer to although I do know of the case, Gool v. the Minister of Justice, but my recollection of that case is that it goes no further than to place an onus upon the person whose name has been placed upon the list and which the hon. the Minister refuses to remove.

What has this got to do with the particular Bill before the Committee?

Mr. Chairman, addressing you on a point of order, my submission is that the hon. the Minister and two subsequent speakers have laid great stress on the fact that a listed person is not prejudiced because he can go before the courts and have the question of his listing tested and if he is wrongly listed, he can be removed. With respect, Sir, this is a very important point. It is fundamental to the whole of this question of the rights of a listed person and it is of the utmost importance that this Committee should be satisfied as to precisely what are or are not a listed person’s rights in respect of approaching the courts, because if the hon. the Minister and Government members are incorrect in their interpretation, then a listed person does not have the rights which the Government contend he has. I persist in saying to this House that section 8bis does not give a right of appeal. There is no mention whatsoever in section 8bis of an appeal. All that it says is that if a person wishes to approach a court to have his name removed from the list he must do so within 12 months. Subsection (3), to which the hon. member opposite referred, merely provides that this must be done by way of action. As I see the position section 8bis remains quite clear and gives no more than a right of review which means that the decision can be disturbed only if there has been male fides on the part of the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask that my vote be recorded against this clause. I shall do so because this is just another one of those provisions which place an undue burden of proof on the accused. The onus of proof of innocence is on the accused. I object to that in principle and therefore I am going to vote against this clause.

Under this clause a person who is accused of communicating with a listed or restricted person will be presumed to have known that such person with whom he is communicating is indeed either listed or restricted, and that this listing or restriction has been gazetted. I want to point out the practical difficulties of this provision. The anti-Communist Act has been in operation since 1950. It has been extended as far as the scope of its operation is concerned by about 80 amending clauses. The number of listings and restrictions is now between 600 and 700 according to the latest figure which the hon. the Minister gave me last week. Although one has the over-all aggregate of the number of people who have been listed or restricted under the Suppression of Communism Act, there has not been a consolidated list gazetted for a number of years. In fact, the last time I asked that this be done, I was given the information by the then Minister of Justice that there was no intention of providing a further consolidated list in the Gazette in the immediate future. This means that unless one has kept a careful check on every name which has been gazetted since the original consolidated list was supplied, i.e. names have been added to the list and removed from it, it is virtually impossible for anyone at this moment to know exactly who is and who is not on the restricted list. Therefore I say it is a very grave hardship indeed to people who will have to prove their innocence in the face of these additional difficulties. Therefore I do not think this is a fair clause. I do not think it gives anybody the opportunity of establishing his innocence and so I wish to record my objections to this clause, and I will vote against it.

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

Clause 4:

I wish to ask the hon. the Minister why he has inserted subsection (2) of this clause. In terms of it the State President or the Administrator of South-West Africa, as the case may be, may exercise the power referred to in subsection (1) without prior notice to any person. Has the Minister had any difficulty in applying the subsection in the past, and whom would he have to give notice to? I shall be glad if the Minister will explain it to us.

I object to this clause as well. I will admit right away that this clause is somewhat of an improvement on the version which was presented to us last year and with which we did not proceed at the time. There is an improvement in regard to one or two of the provisions, in terms of which a person who is convicted could be deported, and these have not been included in this new version. I am grateful for that, because I have learned to be thankful for small mercies in this House. Of the two subsections omitted, one related to the failure to comply with the notice and to report to a police station at specific times, and the other is in regard to anyone who without the consent of the Minister publishes any statement, etc. by a person prohibited from attending any gathering. Those are improvements to the original clause, but there is still one very strict provision which has been left in the clause, and that is the one which makes it possible for a person to be deported, if he is not a South African citizen by birth, if such a person has been convicted under the Suppression of Communism Act because he still has in his possession anything which shows that he was at any time a member or supporter of an organization which is now a banned organization. I cannot imagine why this is included in the clause at all. The other offences mentioned in the clause are fairly serious, but to me this is a very petty offence indeed, that someone may through an oversight simply display on a desk something or other which shows that he was at any time a member or a supporter of a banned organization. I think this goes very far indeed, and the penalties are extremely severe. To be deported is a very severe punishment indeed, and therefore I wish to record my objection to this clause and I shall vote against it.

To reply, firstly, to the hon. member for Transkei: The position is that we should remember that we are now dealing with persons who are not South African citizens.

But they are. It is just that they are not citizens by birth or by descent.

That is so. They are not South African citizens by birth or by descent, to be quite correct. I am grateful for the correction. That is what we are dealing with. In the past this type of person, if he had committed the various offences named here, first had to be tried; he then had to receive notice before he could be deported and he had to be tried properly, and then it frequently happened that when he had to be tried we had to produce reasons why he should be deported, and if the State has to produce those reasons why the person must be deported, the State has to reveal matters which are not in the public interest. It was therefore felt that we should insert this subsection (2), which actually means that it will not be necessary to put him on trial any further. He has appeared before the court once and he has already been convicted. What there was to say, for and against him, has been said in order to obtain a conviction, and consequently he has been tried properly. Now we are depriving him of the ordinary common law access to the court in subsection (2). He can now be deported after he has been convicted, without further access to the court. That is what it amounts to.

As I understand it now, this South African citizen may be deported without getting any notice from the State President, because the Minister says that if you give him notice the person may dispute the justification to deport him, and because he has been convicted of an offence it should be sufficient for him to be deported without giving any further notice. But I submit that these citizens may have been here for a very long time; they may have come here as children. I know of one person who came out here in 1904 and is a member of one of these Houses. He would now be deprived of any right to put up a case to the Minister or to any court merely because he was not born here. But I want to point out, also, that I do not think it is only when a man is convicted of an offence that he can be deported, because as the section reads, any person who is not a South African citizen by birth or descent and who is deemed by the State President to be an undesirable inhabitant of the Republic can be deported because he is a communist or because he has been convicted of an offence. How does the State President decide that he is a communist? I submit that this is going very far. The man has not been convicted of an offence.

If the hon. member wants me to delete the word “communist”, I can do so.

No, what I am worrying about is the fact that no notice is given to the man, that he is given no opportunity to answer the charge; that is what I am worrying about. Sir, did I understand the hon. the Minister to say that he is prepared to delete the word “communist”?

If the hon. member presses me to do so I am prepared to do it.

This comes as a surprise to me; there must be some catch in it. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will tell me why he is so willing to delete the word “communist”. What I was concerned about was the fact that the person concerned would have no notice of the action proposed to be taken against him; that is what I object to. The hon. the Minister’s reply certainly does not make me feel any happier. I think the hon. the Minister should tell the Committee why he is leaving the word “communist” there if it is not necessary.

I consider it most important that the word “communist” should be retained. If the hon. member for Transkei insists that I should remove it, however, I shall gladly do so, but then it will be his responsibility. The position is quite simple. What happened in the past was the following: The man is a self-confessed communist; his conduct shows that he is a communist; he is regarded as an undesirable person, and as soon as one wants to deport him, he runs to the court and says that he has not received notification, and then he asks to be tried first. That is what happened in the past. Our attitude is this: If people have already been tried and convicted there is no reason why they should be tried a second time and why the State should be compelled to prove in what respect they are not desirable persons, because the State may then be compelled to reveal facts that relate to the security of the State. That is all the clause deals with.

The hon. the Minister has said that because the person concerned has already been tried there is no reason why he should be given a second trial. I am not asking him to give such a person a second trial, because if a person has been convicted of one of these offences that would be sufficient to justify his deportation. But there is another type who is not tried by a court. The words “if he is a communist” appear in the original Act and therefore we cannot discuss them here but the point is that that man has been given no opportunity to disprove that he is a communist because he has not appeared before the court. We feel that the man should be given an opportunity to prove that he is not a communist. After all, the Minister has stressed that subsection (2) is being introduced because the person concerned has appeared before the court. I am pointing out that he may not have appeared before the court. We think that he should be given an opportunity to appear before the court and I therefore move—

I still cannot quite understand the Minister’s remarks in regard to the words “if he is a communist”. Was the hon. the Minister merely joking? The Minister said, “if the hon. member wants those words deleted I will delete them”. Was he being serious in saying that?

Perfectly serious.

I do not think I am in order in moving the deletion of this subsection because it is not an amendment, but if the Minister is prepared to accept the deletion of these words because of the fact that the man has not had a trial and has not been able to advance reasons as to why he should not be deported …

No. no. It is useful propaganda.

I think the hon. the Minister appreciates that the person concerned should be given notice of the fact that he is going to be deported, and because of that, I move my amendment.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow the example of the hon. the Prime Minister who said at the beginning of the Session that it was not a good thing for two people to speak on the same day on a subject about which they knew nothing. Therefore I want to express the hope, in view of the fact that the Minister also has certain intentions, that I shall not discuss a subject about which I know nothing. I shall confine myself to those aspects of the Bantu question which relate to the Western Province and of which I have practical knowledge, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will do so too. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, certain people will not look very happy when I am through with them. I am warning the hon. member for Moorreesburg and I am also warning a few other hon. members. Two years ago I said in this House that the position of Coloured labour in the Western Province was impossible. I said that Coloured labour was becoming so scarce that farmers “hi-jacked” workers from one another’s farms. In this House I was denounced as a liar. I was challenged in this House to mention names …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Moorreesburg does not know what I have for him. The smile of the hon. member for Piketberg will also be wiped off his face. This afternoon I am going to conclude with the Paternoster-vissery, Beperk. Mr. Speaker, at that time I was challenged across the floor of this House to mention the name of the farmer concerned. What has happened since that time? The Paarl farmer who did that, and who was innocent according to them, appeared in court six months later and was fined more than R3,000. I believe that that farmer acted in all fairness. One cannot get Coloured labour here. What I said at that time about the scarcity of Coloured labourers in the Western Province still holds good for to-day and the position is even worse. There is no surplus of Coloured labour in the Western Province. Idlers were mentioned here. Let the Government devise a scheme for idlers. I understand that the Government intends devising a scheme for idlers. Let us devise a scheme for them, because I believe that there most certainly are no Coloured idlers in the rural areas. The Minister of Labour is aware of that. Every day 850 Coloureds, and this information I obtained from the Department, catch buses in Malmesbury at 6.30 in the morning to come and work in Cape Town. They live in Malmesbury; this is how serious the position is in respect of Coloured labour in the Cape. Now it can be said, and I know it has already been said, “Why do we not dismiss those Coloureds who live in houses in Malmesbury?” The position is so serious that that cannot even be done. Only one out of a family of two or three remains on the farm. If one dismisses him one has no labour at all. The Minister may accompany me one week-end to see what is happening in Porterville, Gouda and Moorreesburg. He should come and see how buses take Coloureds to the cities for the week every afternoon. The rural areas are being drained of Coloureds. The problem has deteriorated to such an extent that I received a call from Philipstown this afternoon to inform me that people in lorries were recruiting Coloureds at Philipstown to come and work in the Boland. The farmer cannot get labourers. What is the position now? The position is so serious that many of the farmers in the Western Province are employing prison labour at present. Farm prisons are a good thing, because we cannot do anything else. However, the Deputy Minister spoke of the high prices of farms. Is he aware of the fact that the price of a farm is determined nowadays according to its quota of convicts? [Interjection.] The hon. member for Moorreesburg may know something about fisheries, but what does he know about farming? The position is that when a farm is advertised in a newspaper mention is made of how many shares it has in a certain farm prison and to how many convicts it is entitled. This is how serious the position has become. At present one sees many Coloured children on farms in the rural areas and I shall ask the Minister to go on a small tour there. I shall not ask the hon. member for Moorreesburg because he does not come from the platteland and he does not know what the position is. I want to ask the hon. members for Paarl and Stellenbosch, who are farmers, to stand up and tell us how many of our young Coloured people have remained on farms over the past five or six years. All of them, without exception, move to the cities.

How many of the young Whites have remained on the farms?

Sir, I am not dealing with young Whites. If that hon. member wants his sons to work on farms as farm labourers, we can discuss the matter. I am dealing with the people who are the normal, traditional labourers on farms.

Do you want compulsory labour on farms?

No, Sir, but I want the hon. member to keep quiet and learn something. I say that the young Coloureds nowadays do not replace the old Coloureds who are disappearing from the farms. I am sorry to say that, but it is the truth. Every farmer in the Western Province says it is the truth. The position is so serious that many farmers keep their labourers on their farms with liquor. [Interjections.] No, the farmers will not hang me. They will hang the hon. member for Moorreesburg in the same way as they hung up Cape herrings to dry in the early days in Paternoster before they made fish-meal from them. The matter is so serious that I shall furnish the Minister with names and addresses of Coloureds who have been appointed and are paid R10 each to act as recruiters for outside interests in the rural districts. This is happening to-day. The hon. member for Moorreesburg says that he does not know about it. It is happening in his constituency. Let the hon. member read the names if he wants to know who these people are. The hon. member for Moorreesburg, the hon. member for Piketberg and the hon. member for Parow started this agitation. Note who they are. They started this story: “The Western Cape is the homeland of the Coloured and the Bantu has to be removed from here.”

I still adhere to that.

We shall now learn to what extent the hon. member still adheres to that. They started that. When we told them that there were too few Coloureds they said, “Pay higher wages. Give them better accommodation.” We are paying higher wages. We do have better accommodation and what do we find now? Higher wages have not increased the number of day labourers-—the hon. member for Stellenbosch knows something about this. They are becoming scarcer. If on a Friday afternoon one pays more to the Coloured who is so addicted to liquor he lets one know on the Saturday or the Sunday that he is no longer coming to work because he still has some of the money left over from the week before. Ask the hon. member whether this is the truth and whether this has been the experience of farmers. This is how badly things are going now, Sir. How can I, as a farmer, compete with the industries and with the Railways? The Railways takes a Coloured boy who is not even worth five shillings or six shillings per day and employs him at R44 per month. Now I want to ask the Deputy Minister the following question: Does he, as a farmer, see his way clear to pay that wage for Coloured labour? Now it is also “Zip.” The Deputy Minister said that we should follow the example of the Railways. The Railways dismissed 750 Bantu and employed Coloureds. He did not add “at R44 per month”. Fortunately they took the poorest workers in the rural areas. Now I want to ask him whether a farmer can compete with those wages. “Zip!” I have to pay the full price for the dwellings of my Coloureds. What is more, in the Western Province I still have to pay divisional council rates as well. This hon. Minister does not pay divisional council rates in the Transvaal where he comes from.

Up the Transvaal!

Yes, precisely, but you want to place the Transvaal in an even better position. I still have to pay divisional council rates. I say that financially I cannot afford to compete with the Railways and with industries. The Minister spoke here of industries which employed Coloureds in the place of Bantu. Of course they are able to do that. I want to mention one industry which is able to do that. I am thinking of a fishing company which ought to be able to do that, namely Paternoster-vissery, Beperk. They obtained a fish-meal concession of ten tons per hour. They do not work that concession themselves. They do not have a factory. They have sold that document to another company at R7 per ton per hour. i.e. R70 per hour. [Interjections.] Ask the directors whether I know what I am speaking about. You see, Sir, the smiles have disappeared. I said a short while ago that I would remove those smiles. They obtained that extra concession. I am not objecting to that. I just want to tell you now who the directors of that company are. The chairman is Mr. N. F. Treurnicht. He is sitting over there, the hon. member for Piketberg. Who is the other director, who is sitting next to the chairman? Mr. P. S. Marais, the hon. member for Moorreesburg. Who is the other director? Mr. Kotzé. the hon. member for Parow. who is the other director? A wine-farmer of the Western Province, Mr. Wynand Malan, the hon. member for Paarl. Now I ask you, Sir, is it possible for me on a farm to offer any competition, in view of the fact that I have to sell my products at market value, when these people get R70 per hour on the labour market for a piece of paper? Do you know how scarce labour is? In spite of the fact that they derive this good income from that business, they still cannot get Coloureds. I now ask the hon. member for Moorreesburg how many applications for Bantu labour he made during the past year.

I challenge you to prove that that company is not changing over. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must not tell me that he challenges me to prove that they are not enged in whatever it may be. They have been engaged in removing the Bantu for the past ten years and at present there are more Bantu labourers in the employment of that company than there had ever been. Sir, I do not hold that against them, but then they must not hold it against me if I look after my own skin.

What you have said is untrue.

What is untrue? It is not untrue that the hon. member is chairman. It is not untrue that they have obtained a fish concession. It is not untrue that they have sold the fish concession to Silvermans. It is not untrue that Bantu are employed there. What then is untrue? Sir, I say that I do not hold it against them, but they must not hold it against me if my children and I would also like to make a living. I want to go somewhat further. No person would like to work with Bantu if he could get Coloureds. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Moorreesburg must keep quiet now. He is just beginning to be noisy now. [Interjections.] The hon. member must get up and deny it. I have no objection to it. What I have stated here are facts, as far as I am aware. I shall readily accept it if the hon. member got up and said that they were not facts. I say no-one would like to work with Bantu if he could get Coloureds, but the Coloureds are not here. The fool’s paradise which has been created, this myth of hundreds of Coloureds being available, are all figments of the imagination because they simply do not exist. They are not here. Who wants to work with Bantu if Coloureds are available? Who wants to work with people whose language one does not understand? Who wants to work with people who do not know anything about the work? I most certainly do not want to. What is the reason for the fact that there is not a single dairy farmer in the Western Province at present who does not farm with the assistance of Bantu?

That is untrue.

I do not know of a single farmer in the Western Province. Can the hon. member furnish the name of one such farmer?

Here is one, namely the hon. member for Paarl.

He is not a dairy farmer. Do you know what the dairy farmer is saying at present, Mr. Speaker? I am speaking of a person who makes his living from dairy farming and not of a person who keeps one milch-goat. Some of them do have a few non-Whites but most of them employ Bantu labour almost exclusively.

Mr. Speaker, may I mention the name of one farmer to the hon. member? Mr. Christie Burger of Môreson, Eendekuil, is a stud farmer who is a large producer of milk.

No, wait a minute, I probably know him better than the hon. member does. Mr. Speaker, at present we have the position that the Bantu has to be removed from the Western Province. Who will take his place? There are no Coloureds here to do so, and the Minister knows it.

So many figures have been quoted here that I do not want to quote more. Does the hon. Minister know how many Bantu are present in the Western Province illegally? There is no record, there is nothing at all to give any indication of this figure. In the urban areas in particular these illegal Bantu are one of the major sources of labour. I want to come back to this point later. I want to say that this policy with which the Government has started has solved nothing. The only result of that policy has been that labour has become more expensive. Why do I have to pay 50c per month as a registration fee for each Bantu labourer? Why is it not necessary for the farmer in the midlands, in the Transvaal, in the Free State and in Natal to do so? What have we in the Western Province sinned? Why do I have to deposit R25 at the Department of Bantu Administration if I want Bantu labourers? Why do the people in the midlands, in the Free State and in the Transvaal not pay a similar amount?

Before deciding on this policy the Government appointed various commissions in this connection some years ago. The then Minister of Coloured Affairs, at present the Minister of Defence, appointed Committees to advise the Government on how it would be possible to remove the Bantu from here. Why were the reports of those committees never published? According to my information all those committees informed the Government that it simply could not do something like that.

Your information is incorrect.

No, my information is not incorrect. Then publish their findings; surely it is simple enough. Tell us what those committees said.

At the beginning of my speech I said that higher wages tended to make day labourers more scarce rather than more plentiful. That has only made labour more expensive. We have been told to become more mechanized. The Western Province happens to be the most highly mechanized part of South Africa in the field of agriculture. At present we have a few problems in the Western Province. Better irrigation methods are being employed. People conserve water as the Government recommends. As a result more land is being placed under irrigation. The Government allowed the K.W.V. to issue additional wine quotas. Do you know, Sir, that the result of these wine quotas will be that between 3,000 and 5,000 families—not workers—will be required over the next four or five years to provide the necessary labour in this regard?

In other words, you want Bantu families here?

Please wait a moment. There is no need for the hon. member to become so excited. The hon. member should just use his common sense. I say that as a result of irrigation our farming is becoming more intensive. We could produce food more cheaply were it not for the hampering effect which this Government has on our labour. We can produce a great deal more. Our units may even become smaller and still be economic. Unfortunately I do not have the time now to go into that, but that most certainly is the, case. Now we are told that this is the sacrifice which we have to make to solve the colour problem. Well, if this is the sacrifice, then we shall make it gladly. [Interjections.] I agree with the hon. member—if it is necessary to solve the problem in this way we shall make the sacrifice. But what strange phenomenon is this that the colour problem must be solved in the Western Province only? Why must the Bantu be removed from here only? If removal is the solution, also remove the Bantu from the White areas in the Transvaal and the Free State. [Interjections.] The Government is not engaged in anything. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development whether the decrease of 5 per cent is going to be made applicable to the mines as well? Is he going to put a stop to foreign Bantu being recruited outside the borders of South Africa. Let me hear from the Minister. There the Minister “zips” again. He will not do so because we need those people.

You are so unoriginal …

There is nothing unoriginal about what I am asking now, but if the Minister is. so stupid then he has to expect one to repeat these things. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to know why the Western Province has been selected for this experiment. I read tonight’s paper “Blueprint for Coloured People Ready—Parliament at Bellville”. If the Western Province is the homeland of the Coloured, as the Transkei is the homeland of the Xhosa, I want to ask the Minister now—and he must not “zip” again—whether this means that he will introduce legislation aimed at prohibiting the employment of Coloureds outside their homeland? If the people in the Transvaal employ Coloureds there, is the hon. the Minister going to place the same restrictions on the Transvaal as those which are placed on the Western Province when we want to employ Bantu from the Transvaal here?

Are you so stupid as to think that I am responsible for Coloured legislation?

No, Sir, I am clever enough to know that many pieces of stupid legislation come from the side of the hon. the Minister. The Minister is now trying to do an egg-dance. He does not have the courage of his convictions to say now that the Coloured in the Transvaal will be treated in the same way as the Bantu in the Western Province. Let the Minister tell us now whether that will, in fact, be the case?

You are speaking nonsense.

The Minister says I am speaking nonsense, but the Minister does nonsensical things because he does in fact do these things which I maintain he does.

The Coloureds do not have a separate homeland.

Mr. Speaker, let us be honest with one another. If this programme is in fact the solution, let us act accordingly and make the necessary sacrifices, let all of us make sacrifices, including Mr. Piet Marais of Paternoster. But why must only I make sacrifices? Why only my children and I? Let us say that the principle which is being applied is the removal of that population group which does not live in that particular area. Let us then remove the Coloureds from the other parts of the country and return them to the Western Province.

I want to ask the Minister a further question. Does the Minister want our farmers of the Western Province to go and recruit Coloureds in the midlands and in the other provinces? Does the Minister “zip” again? Will the hon. the Deputy Minister have more courage and reply to this?

Mr. Speaker, I said before that it is neither easy nor pleasant to work with a Bantu who can only be used for one year and goes away as soon as he has become skilled in his work. However, there is another problem involved in this entire matter. I now come to the interjection made by the hon. member for Heilbron a few minutes ago. He asked me whether I was in favour of the Bantu labourer’s wife and family being here with him. The hon. member thought I was afraid and would run away from his question. Well, I want to offer the Government a solution if they are prepared to listen. If the Government really believes that a Bantu who was born in the Republic outside his homeland cannot become a citizen of the White part of the Republic, why do they not learn a lesson from what Germany has done in this regard, namely to remove families for periods of up to five years? Does the Government know what they are doing by allowing the Bantu into the white areas without his wife? Government members should go to the platteland and they will see that they are breeding, a race of black Coloureds in the Western Province. And those who come to the cities, strangely enough, become pure White. The hon. the Minister is shaking his head, but it is true. He sits in his office and draws up wonderful schemes, but they all mean nothing.

Is that not the reason why the Bantu are being removed?

Surely it is much easier, instead of using convicts to farm as we have to do now, to bring the entire family here as they have done in Germany. There they have laid out entire townships for Italians who came from Italy to work.

Do you realize, Sir, that that Bantu woman can pick grapes and fruit at less than half the price which has to be paid at present and that we shall be helping those people as well as the producer and the consumer? Why can that not be done? Surely it is simple enough to pass legislation to lay down that any person born there would nevertheless remain a citizen of the Transkei. However, it seems like punishment which is being meted out to us who happened to be born in the Western Province and want to make a decent living here. [Interjections.] The fact remains that the farmers of the Western Province are in a fix and I think the Government and the sensible members opposite are honest and willing to listen to our case but the trouble is that a small handful of members of this House have adopted a certain course and have turned the Government’s head. Surely we cannot continue in this way. The development of the Western Province has to continue and instead of those hon. members helping us and saying that we should appoint a study group to investigate the matter in order to ascertain what is happening, they do nothing. That is the right way to go about the matter instead of dreaming up a formula and forcing it down our throats. What has it solved? Nothing. It has only made a lot of trouble and the thing is now becoming ridiculous.

Do you know, Sir, how one has to set about getting a Bantu at present? I am going to mention the case of a certain school in a native township in the Cape which has a vacancy for a teacher because the previous teacher’s term expired. They had to make application for his replacement. This is a Bantu school. Before it is possible to replace that teacher one first has to obtain a certificate from the Department of Labour stating that Coloured labour is not available. This, at present, is the only way in which a Bantu can come to teach in a Bantu school here. Let us consider another ridiculous case. The Government is quite humane and in many respects they try to apply these ridiculous laws very decently. A Bantu woman may obtain leave in the Transkei to come and visit her husband here. Things are not as bad as they make them out to be abroad. She can get leave to come here on a visit of three months but then she has to make application on the other side to come here. The Department of Bantu Administration gives her leave to come. They do not do that readily but they nevertheless do. However, when she comes here she is caught by the police because she has forgotten to obtain simultaneous leave from the Department at the Cape end to enter here. However, once she has arrived here, if she has been fortunate enough to arrange matters on both sides, she only sees her husband at night because he works during the day, which is quite right, but she can only remain here on condition that she does not raise a finger to do a stroke of work in spite of the shortage of labour. Can you believe that such things happen while the world is crying out for people to work? Where do we land ourselves? Let the Minister rise and say that this is wrong. He is shaking his head but he started the “Zip” story. I want to make the prediction that if the labour position in the Western Province does not change very rapidly one will see chaos here as never before.

Your Party has been predicting that for ten years.

No, the hon. member knows that I am not ill-disposed towards any attempt at solving the white-black problem but he knows as well as I do that this thing solves nothing. It only aggravates everything.

Where is the chaos?

Everywhere. Is it not chaos if a farmer is driven to employ people whose employment lands him in court and he has to pay a fine of R300? [Time expired.]

There is a labour problem in the Western Province, as elsewhere in the country, because there is a general shortage of manpower in South Africa, but now it is such a pity that the hon. member for Sea Point has made a serious matter ridiculous by the way in which he presented it. The hon. member has once again accused some people here. He said, amongst other things, that the same Paarl farmer of whom we spoke last year has now been punished and has paid a fine. He had it all wrong again, just like last year. I want to give him the assurance that the man whose name he mentioned last year, has paid no fine. Last year he mentioned the wrong name. He wanted to mention another name. He went around the Lobby saying that the name he wanted to mention was that of another man, but to-day he repeated the accusation in this House. I want to challenge the hon. member. He will not repeat that accusation outside this House. I think he would then go and do convict labour.

He has made an accusation here for which the farmers of the Western Cape will never forgive him. He insinuated that the farmers were buying Coloureds with liquor. I have heard this hon. member make many comtemptible statements, but this is the most contemptible I have ever heard him make. To-day he was really being himself.

What is all this exaggeration about the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape? What disruption has there been as a result of the removal of the Bantu? I can assure you, Sir, that there is absolute peace and quiet in my constituency. My people get what they want, because every case is dealt with on its merits. But it is United Party propaganda that is going on here, as the hon. member proved shamelessly in this House to-day.

Why shamelessly?

Because there is a by-election in Worcester. Outside, and also in the farming industry, there is peace and quiet. What restriction is there? There is no restriction on seasonal labour. There was merely a slight misunderstanding, but that has been eliminated. Every case is dealt with on its merits, and it is my experience in my constituency that there is always a lot of incitement and propaganda and suspicion-mongering, and then one can always trace it to the United Party. That is where it is born. Nobody on earth would deny that the position as regards the Bantu in the Western Cape was getting out of hand. It got out of hand when the United Party was in power and when they established the locations, the shanty towns, here at Bellville. Now, after years, the position is gradually getting under control.

The hon. member pleaded for the importation of Bantu labour, but what has been our experience in South Africa as far as imported labour is concerned? The white settlement was established here with a labour problem, and labour was imported, the slaves or Malays. Where are they to-day? Are they on the farms? The hon. member pleaded for labour for the farmers, but are the descendants of those slaves on the farms, or are they in the cities? They have become a problem in the cities. Indians were imported as labourers, and where are they? Are they on the farms, or are they one of the greatest problems we have in the cities? There they are a social problem. We could continue along these lines. Where are the Chinese? Is there one of them left in the mines? They stay here in South Africa, and we are saddled with a Chinese problem. I say I admit that there is a labour problem, but not only here in the Western Cape; South Africa has a labour shortage which dates from its earliest history. The importation of Bantu to the Western Cape is not a solution. The more we import, the greater will be our problem in future, because it is the experience of every farmer that eventually—and it does not take very long either; only a few years—if that raw Bantu comes here and has been on the farm for a few years, he lands up in the city within a few years and then he becomes a social problem. I admit that there is a labour problem, but there has always been one. It was not created by the Government, nor was it created by the announcement of the removal of Bantu from the Western Cape. To me the obvious thing is this. The hon. member said that the Coloureds were leaving the farms. That is so. The Whites have also left, but the Whites are going back. They long to go back. The only solution is this. The solution is not imported Bantu labour, because that merely creates a bigger problem. The number of Coloureds is increasing rapidly. The only solution to the labour problem in the Western Cape is the Coloured and not the importation of Bantu or Chinese or Indians. We must make those people useful. They have been neglected. We admit that the Coloureds have been neglected terribly, and the people who are guilty of that neglect are over there in that corner. We can no longer speak of the opposite side of the House; we now have to speak of that little corner, and I want to predict that that little comer will become smaller and smaller. This type of reckless propaganda which the hon. member for Sea Point made to-day will cut no ice with the farmers of the Western Cape, because the farmers trust this Government.

The hon. member for Malmesbury, who has just sat down, said that his constituency was quite satisfied and that he regarded our statement that it would cause disruption if the Bantu were removed from the Western Province as being an exaggeration. However, the hon. member ought to know why his constituency has been satisfied up to now, because the fact of the matter is that the number of Bantu in the Western Province has not been decreased as yet. On the contrary, all data indicate that the number of Bantu in the Western Province has been increasing. What the hon. member for Sea Point did here, was to indicate what the consequences would be if the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education were to succeed in his policy of decreasing the number of Bantu in the white area by 5 per cent per annum. But the hon. the Deputy Minister himself will admit that the number of Bantu is still increasing. Practically every day he receives deputations of farmers or industrialists of the Western Province who come to see him in order to point out to him the consequences of his policy of removing the Bantu from the white areas of South Africa.

Furthermore, the hon. member for Malmesbury told us that imported labour created dangerous problems and he mentioned the example of the slaves and the Indians. We all admit that mistakes were made in South Africa in the past as far as importing labour was concerned, but the United Party holds the view that the Bantu in this country form part of the South African population structure and that if we had made proper use of our Bantu labour force from the earliest times it would not have been necessary to import labour. The hon. member said that Coloureds had to be made more serviceable and nobody will argue with him on that score. The productivity of each population group must be increased to the best of their ability. But why has this problem developed in South Africa? The problem has developed simply because, in the first instance, the white man climbed higher and higher and took the Coloured along with him. The Bantu, however, also forms part of this pyramid; he is the bottom part of that pyramid and if one does not make use of the services of the Bantu one’s economy must suffer. What are the facts of the matter? For many years we have been making use of the services of the Bantu to an increasing extent and over the past two decades we have made more use of their services than ever before; all figures and all data show that. We all know that every Government up to now has taken certain legislative and administrative steps for controlling the influx of Bantu to the white areas, but this Government is the first to make the promise, after having allowed this process of integration, not only to arrest the influx of Bantu but to reverse that process, as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education once more said during this debate. We want to admit immediately that control must be exercised over the influx of Bantu to the white area. Control must be exercised for obvious reasons. The influx of Bantu creates housing problems, sociological problems and problems relating to health services, and for all these reasons it is essential that there must be control.

What about the Bantu’s political rights?

The process of integration, coupled with better utilization of the Bantu’s services, has accelerated considerably in the recent past. Why has this happened? Because, in the economic sphere, South Africa simply wants to burst at the seams. Man always wants to make progress and expand, and a further reason is that this country has strong leaders in the economic field and powerful forces have been joined which give rise to rapid industrial expansion. This trend inevitably led to Bantu labour being used to a larger extent and this process will be accelerated even more in the future. The question is often asked what other countries do which do not have Bantu labour. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education also asked that question during this debate. If he did not do so during this debate then it was during a previous debate. My counter-question is this: “Would they have done anything else than we have done if they had at their disposal these large numbers of non-Whites we have at our disposal to-day?” They would have done exactly the same thing. In other words, they would have made use of the services of those people.

Does Israel use the Arabs?

Yes.

I want to admit that economic integration does involve problems; this side of the Hosue has never denied that. We realize that it will create problems if we are not going to provide sufficient housing for the Bantu. We find even under this Government that it is not possible to make sufficient provision for housing. As regards the provision of social services, we simply cannot provide all the necessary services, in view of the increase in the number of Bantu. However, if one has to make a choice between economic integration and its associated problems, which can always be solved through planning, and the complete withdrawal of the black man from the white area, with all the fantastic problems associated therewith, I would rather choose economic integration with all the problems associated therewith.

In other words, political integration.

I am not the only person to make this choice; the Government itself has apparently chosen economic integration over the past 18 years, in spite of the fact that at the same time it is also the Government’s policy to reduce the number of Bantu in the white areas by 5 per cent per annum. Why do I say that? I say that because the Government boasts that it has stimulated economic development to a large extent, and if the black man in the white area constitutes a danger, this Government itself has placed South Africa on the road to danger, then this Government itself has driven the nail in the coffin of the white man in South Africa; and if the black man in the so-called white area constitutes such a danger I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he can wait until 1978 before removing them? If they do constitute a danger, then they should really be removed immediately. Then it will be out of the question to remove the Bantu from the white areas gradually in order to prevent disruption. If one has a stick of dynamite in one’s pocket, one would surely not walk about with it until 1978. If the Government thinks that the presence of the Bantu in the white areas constitutes a danger, then they must be removed immediately. Mr. Speaker, the presence of the Bantu here cannot be held to constitute a danger, because if it does, the rural areas are sitting on tons and tons of dynamite to-day. The numerical superiority of the Bantu in the white areas can only be eliminated by means of a sharp increase in the White population and, secondly, by means of a powerful attraction to the Bantu areas. At present steps are being taken to improve the position by means of immigration, a policy which the Government has taken over from the United Party. We now find that Mr. Theo Gerdener, the Administrator of Natal, asks that the country’s own white population should be boosted by making various concessions to white married couples. In this case too we find that United Party policy is being advocated by a man who is known as a supporter of the Nationalist Party. To what does this policy of decreasing the number of Bantu in white areas by 5 per cent annually amount? What it amounts to is that the hon. the Deputy Minister is prepared to listen to a small number of agitators within his own ranks to restrict development in certain areas, to remove the Bantu from such areas. He apparently thinks that Whites in the white areas will then feel safe. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself said in this debate, or rather in the Second Reading Debate, that the problems created by the influx of Bantu were throttling the Whites. I want to contend that this policy of the Government is not a cowardly policy; it is merely a cowardly policy to remove the Bantu from the White areas; for that reason the Government is responding to the representation of certain people who regard the Bantu in the white areas as constituting a danger. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, that we in South Africa would feel safer when the Bantu has been removed from the white areas, and are herded together in their own areas with not many opportunities for making a living! How safe can that make the Whites feel? There is only one policy which can bring South Africa safety and that is a policy which has interdependence as a basis.

Complete integration!

The Bantu who come to work in the white area and who enjoy the fruits of progress will not want to destroy that and nobody is going to convice me that the Bantu in the white area who share our civilization with us and enjoy its fruits will want to endanger and destroy that civilization, because what has been the position on the continent of Africa and what has always been the position here in South Africa? Wherever one has had agitation and disturbances, wherever one has had violence, one has always found that those things originated in the fertile breeding-grounds where the desire for a higher standard of living was the strongest and where that had been suppressed.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time is limited. I do not believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to do that but why do we have to try indirectly to create such a fertile field for exploiting the Bantu?

Why do you have to create it?

I am not saying that the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to create it on purpose, but what is the position at present? The fact of the matter is simply that the Bantu come to the white areas, and in particular to the Western Province, because they cannot make a living in their own area. Employment opportunities which have been created for the Bantu in their own areas up to now are minimal. Over the past 18 years the Government has allowed one part of the country to develop normally and other parts to develop sub-normally.

What parts?

I am referring to the Bantu areas. The development of those areas of South Africa is subnormal, and now the Government wants stagnation to set in in the area of normal development, while for a period of 18 years they have been asleep and have allowed the subnormal development of the Bantu reserves. And it is precisely in these areas that the Government could have played a major role and could have given development a tremendous boost. Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite always maintain that the farmers, the industrialists and the businessmen are in favour of the Government’s policy of the removal of the Bantu from the white area, but I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what leading Afrikaans businessmen support this policy of his?

All of them, including the Chamber of Industries of the Cape.

I shall come to them in a moment. Those people prefer to say nothing because they do not want to embarrass their party colleagues. But if one listens to men such as Jan S. Marais, if one listens to the Anton Ruperts and to the Humans of Federale Volksbeleggings when they make projections for the future, what does one find? Do they hold out the prospect that there will ever be a decrease in the number of Bantu in the white areas?

They are sensible.

Of course they are sensible. In making projections for the future they accept that there will be a normal influx and that all manpower in the white areas will be utilized. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the Chamber of Industries was in favour of his policy, but he must not forget that the letter which Mr. Godberg sent to him also appeared in the Press. He said the following (translation)—

This is the answer he gave, but I shall read more of the report. Mr. Blaar Coetzee said (translation)—

And, Mr. Speaker, the Chamber of Industries suggested to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should create an advisory committee.

[Inaudible.]

No, they suggested to him that an advisory committee on how it would be possible to remove the Bantu should be appointed. However, that would not have been the first time we would have had committees of that nature. The hon. the Deputy Minister refused to do so. He was being clever, of course.

I did not.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said in the course of the debate.

What I rejected was that they wanted to compel me to accept their advice.

I shall tell you why the hon. the Deputy Minister adopted that attitude. He did so because he knew that there had been a previous committee on the removal of the Bantu from the Western Province. And that committee, to which the hon. member for Sea Point referred, came to nothing, because instead of those people asking for the removal of the Bantu, they asked for more Bantu in the Western Province at every meeting they held. Therefore it is very easy to understand why the hon. the Deputy Minister was not prepared to accept that proposal. However, I want to put another point to the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister said to the industrialists and the farmers of the Western Province that he would not be inflexible in his attitude. He stated that in the negative. In other words, he will be flexible. Now, if one is flexible, then indeed one is not taking this matter seriously. I am prepared to take the hon. the Deputy Minister seriously. But, the people outside must know exactly where they stand in respect of this policy, in other words, whether or not the hon. the Deputy Minister is taking it seriously, because, this removal of the Bantu from the Western Province is not only going to affect people here, in due course it is going to affect us in the Eastern Cape as well. Not so long ago we were told that a line would be drawn, from the Fish and Kat Rivers up to Aliwal North. But this is not the first time that a line will be drawn between the Eastern Cape and the Western Cape. It is an old pasttime of this Government to draw lines. They draw line between the narrowminded and the enlightened. They even draw a line between what organizations one may belong to and what organizations one may not belong to; whether a person will be allowed to belong to the Rapportryersbeweging or whether one will not be allowed to do so. [Interjections.] In Pretoria they even draw a line between those people who have the largest number of Ministers as guests at their parties and the others who do not have Ministers as guests at their parties. Another line which is drawn is that between persons whom they greet with a kiss and the others whom they do not greet with a kiss! In this way a line is now going to be drawn between the Eastern Cape and the Western Cape. To me that is not funny at all. The Eiselen line is now being converted into the Haak line. [Interjections.] West of the Haak line the Coloureds will have preference in the field of labour. East of the Haak line the Bantu will have preference. This drawing of a line implies that all Bantu west of the Haak line will have to go east, and that with a few exceptions all Coloureds on the eastern side will have to come to the western side. The line has now moved a little to the east. At first the line was just west of Humansdorp up to Colesberg. Now it has moved to the Fish and Kat Rivers up to Aliwal North. This immediately places the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex in the limelight. This complex has not beeen built with coloured labour only. It has been built with great effort by. and depends greatly on, Bantu labour as well.

[Inaudible.]

No, of course I know what I read. The hon. member merely signs documents, he does not even read them. [Interjections.] If one considers this position of the Coloured and the Bantu east and west of the Haak line one must immediately ask the question, “Will the Bantu now have less influence and not be entitled to the utilization of his labour in the Port Elizabeth complex?” Last year the hon. the Deputy Minister told us that Port Elizabeth would be regarded as a marginal case because it is situated close to the Bantu areas. Does that still hold good? Last year in a debate the hon. the Deputy Minister said, and one of the hon. members here will point that out to him, that Port Elizabeth would not be affected when it came to Bantu labour beecause it is a border area.

No. The worst thing that I could have said would have been that Port Elizabeth was not such an urgent case as the Western Cape and the Witwatersrand.

The hon. the Deputy Minister could have said much worse things than that.

Yes, if I were as stupid as the hon. member.

Now, we are entitled to ask the following question. As far as the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and of Bantu Education is concerned, the 5 per cent will apply to all White areas. We are now entitled to ask the question whether that will also apply to Port Elizabeth, in view of the statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister last year. We must have clarity in respect of this area because large extensions are contemplated in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex. And, at the present time, there is absolutely no unemployment. A decrease in manpower will necessarily cause disruption. And what is more, the Coloureds east of the Haak line have virtually no bonds with the Coloureds west of the Haak line. They have been living there for generations and have no bonds with this part of the country. We want to know in no uncertain terms whether it is the Government’s policy that those Coloureds must come to this side of the Haak line or not. And we also want to know what the position will be in respect of extensions in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex if the Government proceeds with its policy of decreasing the number of Bantu by 5 per cent per annum.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park and the Opposition speaker before him, the hon. member for Sea Point, once again proved and illustrated very clearly this afternoon that the United Party’s word was quite unreliable. This afternoon the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Newton Park argued here that the Government should throw open the door to the influx of Bantu into the White area, namely into the Western Cape. The hon. member for Sea Point even made the plea that Bantu with their famileis should come here on a five-year basis, as he called it. But when hon. members advocate such a cause, they purposely remain silent about their so-called race federation plan with all its political implications. When they tell the farmers that the Government should allow more Bantu labour to come in for the sake of the farmers, they keep silent about the fact that they with their race federation plan want these people to be granted political rights in the White Parliament in the White area. I say that it is typical of the United Party to have two versions of the same story. On different occasions they have different versions to suit the audience. Mr. Speaker, I also want to tell the hon. member for Newton Park that he made a whole lot of vague statements.

[Inaudible.]

I am speaking to the hon. member for Newton Park. He made a whole lot of vague statements and, amongst other things, he mentioned the names of a few industrialists, such as Mr. Jan S. Marais and Dr. Anton Rupert. In their projections they still visualize that there will be more Bantu in the White area in the year 2000 than there are at present. But then the hon. member does not say “the Western Province”; he says “the White area”, and he does not quote a single statement made by one of those people to bear out what he says. If he wants to make a proper speech and wants to substantiate what he says, that is the least he can do; that is the least we expect of him.

I should like to come back to a large number of wild statements made here by the hon. member for Sea Point. I may tell you that when I call him the hon. member for Sea Point, that designation is confined to this House. No farmer in the Western Cape calls the hon. member for Sea Point an hon. farmer outside this House. There are very few of his fellow-farmers who hold him as a person in high esteem.

It is very undignified of you to say that. I expected better of you. Why do you not let go of that pulpit manner when you speak?

The statements made here this afternoon by the hon. member merely bear testimony to total irresponsibility. I shall mention some of those things. I may tell the hon. member that he need not come to the rescue of the hon. member for Sea Point. If he had had the courage to remain seated until he was replied to, I would at least have thought something of him.

Did the hon. member for Malmesbury not reply to that?

He did not reply to a considerable number of personal accusations the hon. member made here. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to refer to the allegation made by the hon. member for Sea Point, namely that a certain few M.P.s—the hon. member for Parow, the hon. member for Moorreesburg, the hon. member for Paarl and myself—had organized themselves in some way or other as directors of a fishing company which had obtained certain concessions, concessions which were supposedly being hired out.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to say first of all that in what the hon. member for Sea Point said, he kept back the names of the other directors serving on that board. He creates the impression that all the directors are Members of Parliament who are taking advantage of their position to obtain certain things from the Government, and get away with it. This is the only company on the West Coast in which fishermen from the fishing community are members of the board of directors of a fishing company. They are people who are active and who go out to sea themselves, who catch fish themselves and who make a contribution in that way. The hon. member has never raised objections to the capitalists of Sea Point going up the West Coast, building up major fishing interests and enriching themselves. He has no objection to that, but when, at the instance of active fishermen occupying humble positions in that industry, the hon. member for Moorreesburg, the hon. member for Parow and I—who grew up on the West Coast—tried to organize something for them so that they may get a living share in that industry, then there are tremendous objections. This I want to tell him, and I also want to tell it to the Opposition: Those people on the West Coast, those simple fisher-folk, are the people who, as the hon. member for Malmesbury said, have driven the Opposition into a corner. Nobody ever looked after the interests of those people. Nobody ever tried to reason why it was that the fishermen on the West Coast, who are employed in the industry and whose fathers started the industry, did not obtain an interest in that industry; why it was that the capitalists of Sea Point were granted the concessions. As regards these Members of Parliament whose names were mentioned here this afternoon, I want to say the following: The hon. member for Moorreesburg and I received representations from those people in which they asked us how it was possible that Mr. Silverman, Mr. Alan Lees, Mr. Aap du Preez—who are from Cape Town—Mr. Shapiro and others had obtained these mighty fishing interests. How is this possible? But one can easily understand that, not so? These people have money, these people have business experience. They had the right. But how is it possible that we never got anything, that the Government did not do something for us?

It was for that reason that the hon. member for Moorreesburg and I started to make representations to the effect that the State had to do something to recognize the contribution the fishing community had made, even if their personal contribution, namely that of catching fish, could be likened to that of hewers of wood and drawers of water. However, since these people were unorganized, the Department had great difficulty in helping them. That is where the hon. member for Moorreesburg and I fit into the picture. We organized a body and, for the sake of these simple people who had been in the industry for years—some of them for three to four generations (they had been fishermen long before there were fish factories for processing fish meal)—we asked the State to grant recognition to these people and to establish a body which would look after their interests. I may tell you that it was at the suggestion of the Department that this proposal was made. It was said that, if such a body could come forward, something could possibly be done for those people. That is why we bought, at our own risk, the Paternoster Fisheries—which was at that stage a bankrupt concern, or a concern which was on a very poor footing—reorganized it and sold those people more than 50 per cent of the shares at par. They could not obtain a fishing share at par anywhere. They could buy 50 cent shares at R3 or R5 each, but not at 50 cents. This Paternoster concern is the only and the first concern to give the fishermen in the industry, the boat owner, and the ordinary crew member, a chance of obtaining an active share in a relatively modest concern. Paternoster’s capital is only half a million and the bigger companies work in millions and millions. Today this is one of the veiled hints coming from the other side.

As far as the hon. member for Moorreesburg, the hon. member for Parow, the hon. member for Paarl and I are concerned, the books of that company are open to all, and you may examine our shareholdings and see whether we are the people who have in some way or other benefited ourselves in an unseemly manner. We took the financial risk of that company, we signed for it, and we received no compensation for it. I am sure that this fishing community on the West Coast is grateful that the Government recognized that concern and that they could get in on the ground floor, and that is why that company was granted a ten-ton fish meal quota when the latest concessions were granted. That concession was not sold or bartered away, as the hon. member for Sea Point said here. That company continues to catch its own fish, and it is merely because in present circumstances that ten-ton concession is too small to justify the building of an independent factory, that it was arranged in consultation with an existing company that the latter company would for a five-year period process that ten-ton concession which had been granted on such fish as were caught by this company itself, owing to the cost of building a factory in these times. That is why I want to repudiate the statement made here by the hon. member for Sea Point as being totally unfounded, as being typical of the kind of slanderous talk with which the United Party always comes out when it thinks that it may attract a few votes somewhere.

I repeat: The United Party and the hon. member for Sea Point do not object to the big fishing magnates, but when it is Messrs. Eygelaar, Boonzaaier, Engelbrecht and Mostert, whose grandfather and father were engaged in that industry and opened up the way for other people to get in with big money, then there are objections. I want to hope that, if he should ever find himself amongst these people on the West Coast, they will give him a good talking to. I want to leave the matter there.

I want to come back to the question of labour in the Western Province. In this regard I want to come back to the labour position at Paternoster. Over the past few years Paternoster has been applying for 400 Bantu per year. They usually got a few less, but that was more or less their quota, and they operated in two fishing areas. One of the first lines of policy the Paternoster board of directors adopted, was to consider how we could replace Bantu labour by Coloured labour, how we could reduce Bantu labour in the first place. Within two years we reduced it, not by 5 or 10 per cent, but by 25 per cent. I want the hon. member for Sea Point to deny this. We reduced it by 25 per cent, and it is a standing resolution that we shall continue to provide housing for the Coloureds and not for the Bantu, and that we shall also continue to develop other methods in regard to the utilization of Bantu labour for the purpose of economizing on and eliminating as much labour as possible. Even as regards this aspect the hon. member made an irresponsible statement here.

When will this reduction come into effect?

The reduction has already come into effect. It has already come into operation. The company applied for 300 Bantu this year. I think the company employs fewer than 300 Bantu. If my memory serves me correctly, it employs roughly 260. Now I want to say a few things about the labour position in the W.P. Just as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—if I may mention the two of us in the same breath—I also grew up in the W.P. Even in my childhood days—that was in the years between 1920 and 1930—farm labour was very scarce in the W.P. When I was nominated for the first time as the member of this House for Piketberg, one of those who were present specially congratulated me on my nomination. The reason for this was that when I was nine years of age my father lent me to him to be his plough-boy. In those days there was still a demand for people who could lead the plough. I worked for him because he did not have sufficient labour. He started developing a large farm, but he did not have enough labourers. That was in the vicinity of 1928 or 1929. Why this outcry at present that there is a labour shortage in the W.P.? Surely, there has been a labour shortage here for a long time.

Now I want to furnish the hon. member with a different set of figures. At present there are farms in the W.P. which have many Coloureds. On a certain farm there are 1,000 Coloureds—adults and children. On another farm there are 500. Those farmers are capable of undertaking unlimited expansion on their farms, because they have the necessary labour. I am not referring to the Bantu, I am referring to Coloureds.

Now, the general trend among Coloureds and their entire outlook on society are such that they want to be where there are many people. Unfortunately it is one of our problems that the person who has much, easily gets more, and the person who has little, gets even less. I want to admit that many of our farmers are experiencing difficulties in this process. But there are still many farms in the W.P. where there is a surplus of Coloured labour.

I want to furnish the hon. member with a few figures, because he worried me with the vague statements he made here. A few weeks ago I sent somebody to fetch a few loads of stone. The foreman was driving a lorry, but that morning he did not have people to help him. Therefore he simply drove to the Coloured quarter of Piketberg to recruit a few labourers. That was as late as 9 o’clock in the morning. He recruited five Coloured labourers there. What were they doing when he found them? Nothing. What did they intend doing that day? Also nothing. At any rate, they helped the foreman to load the stone. Somebody else came there with another lorry and, because labourers were scarce, the same five Coloureds loaded the second lorry. They were hired for the day or for the week. Nevertheless, when that man with the lorry arrived at the working-place where the stone had to be off-loaded, not a single Coloured was to be seen on the back of the lorry. They had quietly jumped off along the way. Apparently they had decided that they had to work too hard and had preferred to disappear along the way. They were clean gone.

There is also the matter of Coloured labour. There are even people still who are not working. Our problem is not so much to find the numbers, but to discipline those people and to set them to work. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Newton Park the following question: When the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs introduces Bills which are aimed at setting our Coloured population to work and disciplining them and at co-ordinating manpower, I hope that that side of the House will co-operate. Hon. members on the other side should not continue to plead for more Bantu labour in the Western Cape. Let us co-ordinate and discipline the available labour and utilize it for the benefit of all of us.

Only a few years ago we in Piketberg were engaged in a water scheme. We asked the chairman of the municipality whether Coloured labour was available, and he replied that such labour was not available and that the little there was of it, was of a very poor quality. But within one day the foreman had 30 people there. Where did he find them? I think even more people were found at a later stage.

That is why I want to say that the people who are talking so irresponsibly and lightly about the tremendous shortage of Coloured labour, should reconsider the situation. We are in a difficult position. We have a problem. But I think that we can manage much better with the available labour. I want to say that the statement the hon. member for Sea Point made here, is untrue. He claimed that the farmers of the W.P. were bribing one another’s labourers with wine. Bad farmers are indeed to be found in the W.P. I do not want to say that the hon. member for Sea Point is one of them. I do not know about everything he does. But in general the standard of our farming community is high. Many farmers are prepared to pay their workers more than the usual wages if they will only consent to drinking no liquor. The allegation that the farmers in the W.P. are always supplying their Coloured labourers with lots to drink and coaxing away other farmers’ labourers by means of liquor, is untrue. Over there we have the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is an honest and respected farmer. It is not his practice to do such a thing. I know that it is not a general practice in the W.P. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to call the hon. member for Sea Point to order for a change. By suggesting such a thing the hon. member is casting a reflection on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is also a farmer.

You are talking nonsense. I am a farmer, too.

The hon. member for Sea Point is so much of a farmer that no farming constituency will ever nominate him. He must go to Sea Point, because that is the only place where they will nominate him. I suspect that if it had not been for a strong recommendation by the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member would not even have been able to make the grade there, either.

In conclusion I just want to say this. We farmers in the W.P. know …

“We” farmers?

I am a farmer, too. Perhaps the hon. member does not know that. I want to tell him that I probably employ four or five times as many Coloureds as he does. But I do not always go about talking about my interests, and so on.

But now I am one who does not know.

You do not know. But you talk about many things of which you know nothing. The broad view held by our Whites in the W.P., is a responsible view. In general our people realize that we cannot allow an unrestricted influx of Bantu into the Western Cape, because if we do so, we are digging our own graves. Our people in the Western Cape are willing to work with a labour shortage. Surely, that is no novelty. Throughout the Western world there is a labour shortage, especially when it comes to labour in agriculture, unskilled labour in particular. In comparison with other countries such as America, we have quite a large number of labourers in the rural areas. In America and other countries the labourers only go through an orchard once and the rest has to drop to the ground because they do not have sufficient labour. That is the way they harvest there. We feel that we are prepared to make sacrifices in the economic sphere, if by doing so it will be possible for us to preserve our country for the Whites. We can also employ a labour shortage as a means of forcing and teaching our White sons to work hard. Our people are turning soft.

With pick and shovel? Is that your policy?

In many cases we can replace the pick and shovel by other implements. Perhaps the hon. member does not know that. But we can do a very great deal by means of a little more mechanization in many respects. We should like to see our White sons and daughters in the W.P. accepting responsibility in regard to agriculture and being guided back to this profession by putting their own shoulders to the wheel. We have progressed too far on the road of wanting everything to be done by the Coloureds and the Bantu. There are still people in the W.P.—I can take the hon. member to them—where husband and wife as well as their sons and daughters all lend a hand and pack 1,000 up to 1,200 trays of grapes per day—not per week. They are people who are making spectacular progress.

I want to express the hope that we as Whites in the Western Province will realize that we shall have to put our shoulders to the wheel, not only by way of talking and arguing about Bantu and Coloured labour, but also by way of using our own energy and doing the maximum amount of work ourselves. Then there will probably be enough Coloured labour. In addition there is the fantastic growth of the Coloured population. According to calculations we shall have three million Coloureds in South Africa by the year 2,000, and most of them will be in the Western Cape. Where are they going to find work? They will pull their weight in the growing industry. In many cases they will also take the place of the Bantu.

I extremely regret that the Coloured people have been dragged across the floor of this House in a manner which does not do credit, in my opinion, to this Parliament or to the Coloured people. I should like to say that I and my colleagues will never permit reflections on the Coloured community of this country without making the strongest protest at all times. It has been most unfortunate that the Coloured people have been referred to in terms which mean that they are unworthy to occupy a place of prominence in this country. [Interjections.] I am not going to make any accusations against hon. members. I am speaking as a Coloured Representative, and I want to say that it has been our task as Coloured Representatives to endeavour at all times to assist in the upholding of the good name of the Coloured people. I am not trying to ingratiate myself with the Minister of Coloured Affairs or with the Government, but I must say that the effort which have been made toward that end have been very many, and some of them have been very successful. We must never in this House say anything which will bring the Coloured people into disrepute and hurt their feelings. I hope it will never happen again.

It has been said that the Coloured people are leaving the farms. There are many reasons for their doing that. There are many thorny problems which need to be tackled. I am not going to attack anybody or any group of people, but what are the reasons for the Coloured people leaving the farms? There may be many. There has been reference to the drink problem. The tot system has been a curse to the country, which has deleteriously affected the Coloured people in years gone by. What about the pay they get on the farms? Is it not that they are attracted by a little more money which they can earn in the towns? I do not want to attack the farmers. I do not want to sound a discordant note about the way the Coloured people are treated, but there are other questions like the matter of schooling. I have spoken to a lot of Coloured people and I have asked them why they are leaving the farms to go to the cities, and they tell me that their children need to be educated and there are not enough, if any, facilities for them to learn on the farms, and therefore they go to the towns and the cities. Then of course there is the economic growth of this country which has created a demand for more workers in the towns, and the Coloureds have gone there. It is a problem which I admit is difficult, but I do not think that the people who employ the Coloured people are completely free from blame in regard to this trek from the farms to the cities. Then we must also remember that there are thousands of Coloured people, men and women, who have to sit for many months of the year doing nothing because they are seasonal workers, working in the seasonal occupations such as fruit-picking and fish-canning, and there are several months of the year when there is no work for them. Just by way of meeting the point made by the hon. member for Piketberg, he said that when they wanted to load stone, they found five labourers, but when they had to come and unload the stone they had disappeared. What wages were they offered for doing that work? We are not told that. The pay of the Coloured man on the farms has not been in conformity with the economic requirements of the Coloured people and the increase in the cost of living.

But the main reason why I intervened in this debate was not to talk about the Coloured worker, because I think the opportunities will come during this Session when we can discuss this question at great length. I merely intended to take part—and I think the Minister of Finance, who must be completely bored by this debate, will forgive me if I do not talk finance, although I might say to him that if perhaps he had made more money available to the Coloured Affairs Department the economic position of the Coloured people would have been much better than it is. But I really got up to speak on the question of sport which was raised before, and I am glad to have the opportunity during this debate to say something on this subject. I want to say that I agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who, according to the press, said he was sorry that sport was dragged into politics. I agree with him, because the Coloured man does not want, and has never asked or demanded, mixed sport. Why do you accuse him of wanting mixed sport? That is the accusation the Government makes. They have never asked for it, but what they do want is the right to go and see sport played. Now, much has been said about tradition. The hon. the Minister of the Interior spoke about the tradition of South Africa and he said that the Government wants to uphold the traditional way of life in this country. I want to ask him, in his absence, why does he want to use tradition to break tradition? Because the tradition of the Cape has been broken by the Government, by those people who do not know the tradition of the Cape. The tradition of the Cape has always been that the Coloured man was free in his movements and in any other way to go and visit any sporting occasion as a human being and as a citizen of this country. But now they need a permit to do so. It is true that the Minister said that they could go to Newlands; there is a perpetual permit for that, but they do not want to go under perpetual permit; they want to go there as of right. Let me just remind hon. members that in the City of Cape Town, where Coloured people are ratepayers and there are municipal swimming-pools and municipal sporting fields, the Coloured man has never claimed his right as a ratepayer to go to these places, but has always gone to those places specially set aside for the Coloured people.

It is apparent that the Coloured man always has to be kicked around. In the sporting field the Coloured man has loomed very large. All that the Coloured man wants is the right as a human being to be free. Why should Coloured people not be allowed to go to the City Hall to watch boxing; why should they not be allowed to go and watch soccer; why must they have a permit? Sir, that is the tradition which this Government has broken, and I have the right to demand that that tradition be observed in this country. Sir, the hon. the Minister of the Interior spoke here of our traditional way of life in sport. Since he has just entered the Chamber, I want to repeat what I have said very briefly for his benefit. The hon. the Minister does not realize that what the Government regards as the traditional way of life in South Africa is foreign to the traditions of the Cape. The hon. the Minister is a Cape man; he must know that the tradition of the Cape was freedom of movement for the Coloured people to go and watch any form of sport without a permit. The only excuse that the Government has for insisting on permits is to make sure that separate facilities are available, and when the Government talk about separate facilities I think they mean separate toilet facilities.

Sir, there is not a single sports venue, either municipal or otherwise, where separate facilities do not exist or where they will not be provided by the bodies concerned. Of course, we do not know what goes on in our homes when we are away from home. I do not know whether my servant girl uses my toilet when I am not there, nor can hon. members opposite be sure that their servant girls do not use theirs when they are away from home. But when it comes to public places the question of the availability or otherwise of separate toilet facilities, in the opinion of the Government, is of paramount importance. Sir, I want to endorse the request made by the hon. member for Yeoville in his amendment that the Government should “allow all race groups to watch all organized sport, provided adequate facilities are available for Whites and non-Whites”. That is the request that I now make on behalf of the Coloured people. Sir, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs is here. He realizes to what extent the Coloured people are anxious to co-operate with the Government in various fields for the benefit of the Coloured people but this sort of pin-prick, this petty apartheid policy practised by the Government is a retarding factor that stands in the way of co-operation.

This policy of petty apartheid does not help the Government and it does not help the Coloured people. We know that when there is a boxing tournament in the City Hall of Cape Town in which the participants are Whites, the Coloured spectators sit upstairs where arrangements can be made for separate toilet facilities. Why deprive these people of the opportunity of attending that boxing tournament as spectators. Why should it be regarded as a crime for them to attend as spectators unless they have a permit? Why hurt the feelings of the Coloured people by saying to them: “You cannot go here or there as a citizen of the country unless you have a permit?” It is a slur on the Coloured people; it is degrading to them; they do not deserve it. It is not necessary. It does not affect the progress of this country one iota. Sir, I make a very sincere appeal to the Government to do away with this permit system in sport. By doing so the Government will be helping materially to promote better relations between the Coloured people and the Government. I know that the Government is doing its best to create more goodwill between the Whites and the Coloureds. The Coloured people are only too anxious to co-operate but why put a halter around their necks and pull them back as if they were horses? Why say to them in effect, “You can go here because I lead you there but you cannot go there because the road is not open to you ” Why not remove these petty pin pricks?

If the Government does away with these petty pin pricks it will find that it will lead to a better understanding between the Whites and the Coloureds; that there will be a greater response from the Coloured people and that greater progress will be made. Coloured people have said to me; “The Government does not want us to take part in sport together with white people; that we do not mind, but somehow or other that only applies to this country; our Springboks go overseas to countries like New Zealand where they play against the Maoris.” There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but the reverse is not allowed to happen in this country. Why should mixed sport be allowed in a foreign country but not here? I can understand that the Government’s answer will be that if mixed teams were allowed to come to this country it would be an acknowledgment of the Government’s willingness to allow mixed sport, which is contrary to the Government’s policy, Sir, I want to conclude by saying this; Please try, as far as possible, to keep the Coloured people out of squabbles in this House when they are brought in merely as a political football. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs to use his influence with his colleagues, and I want to plead with the hon. the Minister of the Interior and the hon. the Minister of Community Development to remove the restrictions which apply to Coloured spectators as far as sport is concerned. They will then be doing the Government and the Coloured people a great service.

The hon. member for Boland pleaded here that nothing be done in this House which would be detrimental to the position of the Coloureds; in fact, he pleaded that we who are gathered together here should try to improve the position of the Coloureds. I should like to associate myself with that point of view, but then I want to add immediately that the hon. member does not always understand how this ought to be done. He made a plea here this afternoon to the effect that Coloureds should as it were be given a free pass to attend White sports meetings. He tried to give us a lecture here on what the tradition in South Africa is and, more specifically what the tradition here in the Western Province is. But the hon. member is after all not the only one who knows the Western Province and who grew up here. We also know the Boland tradition. According to the Boland tradition there has always been separation, and the Boland tradition is that that separation must be maintained. What was our experience on a few occasions here in the Western Province in regard to mixed spectators at major rugby matches here at Newlands? I am not mentioning this in order to speak derogatively about the Coloured population, but our experience at important rugby matches at Newlands has time and again been that because of the level of development of a large number of the people present there, matters simply got out of hand. Even their leaders realized that things could not go on like that. I want to go further and with reference to the debate held here a few days ago on the question of mixed sport, in which I was only able to begin talking and could not proceed, I want to say that reference was made there to the question of Maoris in a New Zealand touring side. The hon. member for Durban (Point) levelled the accusation that what this Government’s policy amounted to was that we wanted to prescribe to overseas powers how they should compile their teams and that we wanted to make racial classifications in those countries. I then told the hon. member that that was not correct. In New Zealand the Maoris classify themselves separately. They form their own Maori rugby board, etc. [Interjections.] We play against them, says the hon. member. But the hon. member does not understand this matter and that is why I want to deal with it now because it is the same as the matter he raised here this afternoon. The standpoint of this Government is not one of hostility to any other country’s sportsmen or any section of their sportsmen. On the contrary, we have the greatest respect for the Maori rugby players of New Zealand and that is why this Government allowed two Maori rugby administrators to come here as guests of the South African Rugby Union during our festival celebrations.

What a wonderful concession!

But those two Maori rugby administrators had more sound commonsense than many hon. members in this House, because upon their return to New Zealand one of them, Mr. Ralph Lodge, said that after his visit here he understood fully why we in South Africa could not have mixed sports. It was because of the level of development of a certain section of the population. He has so much sound commonsense that he stated that because of those circumstances he understood why mixed sport could not be allowed in South Africa and that the presence of a few Maoris in a New Zealand team would create problems for us in the domestic situation with which we have to deal. That is not because we have anything aginst those people: Our players go and play against them in New Zealand. We have respect for those Maori players, but they themselves have so much understanding that they realize that the moment they played here it would cause a chain reaction of complications with which we—and not they—would have to deal after their departure. That is what hon. members on that side of the House do not realize or understand. One of the hon. members said the other day that the statement made by the hon. Minister of the Interior to Mr. Alexander resulted in two South Africans and a Rhodesian being dropped from the world cricket team. Mr. Speaker, surely that is not so? It is part of a hostile set-up aimed at South Africa. The hon. member who is laughing there must get his facts straight. He will then agree with me that the Pollock brothers, whom we respect because they remained loyal to South Africa in spite of the slap in the face they received, and Colin Bland had previously played for the world team after the attitude of this Government to mixed sport in South Africa had been made clear. Then there was nothing wrong with that and they were good enough to play in that world team. This was another attempt on the part of hostile countries to get at South Africa. But I say that South Africa and this Government will not allow itself to be put off its stride by that. We will respect sportsmen, wherever they may be in the world, and whatever their colour may be. But then we ask that politicians in other countries of the world take into consideration the situation with which this Government has to, deal in South Africa.

I do not want to go into this matter any further. I want to return to the subject which has been raised here this afternoon. I only want to say that I am very sorry that the Opposition does not see its way clear to discussing financial matters in this financial debate. I was prepared to deal with them on that score, but it makes one look forward with so much more satisfaction to the Budget debate which is still to come.

Mr. Speaker, the question of labour in the Boland and the Western Cape was raised here this afternoon. The hon. member for Sea Point, a Boland farmer, who is again not present here, availed himself of this opportunity not only to bring his fellow-farmers in the Boland into discredit and present them in a bad light, but also to present the Coloured population of the Western Cape in the worst possible light. What his entire argument this afternoon amounted to was that the Coloureds were too hopeless to serve as a source of labour for the Boland and that the farmers were so hopeless that they used liquor to compete for labour and that the only solution for us was to introduce as much Bantu labour as possible. That was the gist of his argument. The hon. member for Newton Park even went so far as to say that they saw no objection to that because they regarded the Bantu as a permanent part of our population structure. That is why there is nothing wrong in allowing as many of them as possible to come in. Now as a Boland farmer I want to say that I want to object very strongly to those reprehensible words which the hon. member for Sea Point used here this afternoon when he alleged that farmers in the Boland were enticing one another’s labour away with liquor. I do not know whether the hon. member has interests in the liquor trade in a Coloured area here in the Peninsula and whether for that reason it is easy for him to accuse farmers of trying to entice one another’s labour away with liquor.

[Inaudible.]

I am glad the hon. member is back. After all, we farmers here in the Boland do have such a thing as integrity. One should think twice before going so far as to make allegations like that from a platform such as this.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? How much liquor, on an average, do farmers in the Boland give their farm labourers these days?

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member what I do on my own farm, but the hon. member will not account for what he does on his farm and in his neighbourhood. The farmers I know and with whom I associate are people who do not use liquor as a means to acquire labour, nor do they allow their labour to deteriorate through liquor. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is present here and he is a farmer himself. I take it that he himself adheres to this rule amongst us Boland farmers that liquor is not intended to reduce our people’s capacity for work and productivity or in that way to entice those people away.

In keeping with what the hon. member for Boland said here, I want to say nothing to detract from the potential of our Coloured labour. I want to admit that there are shortcomings and that there are numerous cases of Coloureds who are not in full-time or effective service, but at the same time I want to ask myself this question: Is there not in the Coloureds with all their problems, and all their shortcomings, but who grew up here amongst us and who speak our language, a very much greater potential than in the raw Bantu from the Transkei who are only accustomed to lying in the sun?

Where are they?

It is an acknowledged fact that not. only the Coloureds but also the Whites on the farms and in the towns are decreasing in numbers. It is an economic law throughout the world that this should happen as a country becomes more and more industrialized.

You yourself were a member of a deputation which went to the hon. the Minister to look for people.

Mr. Speaker, I am not ashamed of having been a member of any deputations because I know that in regard to the matters I champion I can always hold my head high.

You asked for more Bantu; that was what the deputation was for.

If the hon. member will allow me to do so, I want to make the point that nobody denies that labour is becoming scarcer. It is not only the case in the Western Cape, it is a countrywide phenomenon. It is becoming scarcer throughout the entire world in countries which are in the same position as we are, namely which are becoming industrialized. But the first possibility for the Boland farmer, if we want to deal specifically with agriculture lies in Coloured labour which has always been the source of labour on the farms. If some of this labour is drifting to the cities then it is a purely normal phenomenon which is taking place throughout the entire country and which is also taking place in the case of the White section of the population. Now I want to wipe out a wrong impression which the hon. member for Sea Point created here. He created the impression that all the Coloureds were leaving the farms. I want to state that farmers who treat their Coloured labour in the old traditional Boland way do not have labour problems. They are not experiencing difficulty with labour. That hon. member must not make those kind of derogatory remarks now. In any case he does not understand these things. All he can talk about is wool. I should like to take hon. members who do not know the Boland with me on a tour to show them what is being done to-day by our Boland farmers, not only to keep their Coloured labour on the farms, but also to improve the productivity of that labour. I should like to show hon. members how many Coloured farm schools there now are in the rural areas of the Boland and what good results are being achieved with those schools, what the consequences are and what the percentage is of Coloured migration there. It is disappearing.

How many of those school children remain on the farms?

In the regions where farm schools are being established the percentage of migration, which is large in other regions, is small. They develop a love for that region and that school which becomes their cultural centre. In this regard I want to mention an example from my own constituency. A group of farmers teamed up and bought a small farm of ten morgen. Thanks to the assistance we received from the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, they are going to transform the little farm into a school in the first instance and also into a Coloured community centre where they will have their own entertainment and where a clinic and sport facilities will be organized for them. I want to predict that that example will soon be followed by numerous other constituencies in the Boland. It costs those farmers money, but that is what they are prepared to do to keep their Coloured labour at their disposal in the first instance before looking to other sources of labour such as Bantu or bandits.

I should liked to take hon. members who have not lived in the Boland with me to our Boland farms to show them how mechanization is taking place to-day, how our dairy farmers are to-day using milking machines and how labour, which is becoming scarcer, is becoming less and less necessary there. I want to show them how mechanization has taken place on our fruit farms as far as the picking of fruit is concerned, so as to limit labour to the minimum, and how the farmer and his family themselves take a hand whenever possible to share in the work on those farms. I should like to take hon. members with me to our wheat-growing districts to see how mechanization is taking place on those farms to-day and how labour is being organized in such a way that only the minimum is necessary. The picture of our Boland farmers held up to us here by the hon. member for Sea Point is a false one. It is a picture which is unworthy of him as a Boland farmer himself. [Interjection.]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member is on the run now, so to speak, but this afternoon in this House he created an impression of the Boland farmer which is a totally false one. The Boland farmer has, in his attempts to utilize the labour potential and because of the expansion of his industry, growing undertakings and the increasing number of farming directions, more need of seasonal labour. That is why he has to look to other sources. The impression which the hon. member gave here this afternoon of the Boland farmers implied that they wanted to grab an unlimited number of Bantu labourers for that purpose, and that impression is also an erroneous one. It is necessary to obtain additional labour for seasonal work, but we do not have any problem in that connection.

It has always been my view that even if we were to bring Bantu to a region such as this for a season only to pack fruit, or whatever it may be, we would in no way whatsoever be affecting the principle of the policy of reducing Bantu labour in the Western Cape. That is the attitude which the hon. Deputy Minister adopted towards that deputation to which the hon. member referred. If the hon. member would only try to become better acquainted with the attitude of the Deputy Minister and of the deputation which went to see him he would have had something which he could have discussed with some degree of knowledge here this afternoon. But now the hon. member has bruited abroad the impression that the Boland farmer is a terrible person who handles his Coloured labour badly. The Boland farmer is doing everything in his power to expand his industry on the basis of Coloured labour in the first place. He is going out of his way to mechanize and to create facilities for his Coloured labour on his farm and elsewhere.

What is so strange about that?

There is nothing strange about that. What I do find strange is that the hon. member does not agree. To my way of thinking it is strange that the hon. member wants to allow the Bantu to come in here by the hundreds. What we find strange is what the hon. member for Newton Park says, i.e. that they regard the Bantu as a permanent part of our population and that they see nothing objectionable in their coming here. The Boland farmer regards Bantu labour as a supplementary source of labour. As they are able to utilize other means, less and less use will be made of Bantu so as to fit in with the pattern which the Government is striving to establish. The Boland farmer also knows that if problems, apart from political problems arise in regard to the Bantu who are not acquainted with the White part of the country, the population will look to the authorities, the Government, for a solution. The population do not look to the Opposition with their attitude of, “let them come in as they please”, for a solution. It is sufficient for me to say that the picture of the agricultural industry in the Boland which the hon. member for Sea Point painted here this afternoon is a totally false one, one which the Opposition ought to feel ashamed of.

He is a liquor pedlar.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Moorreesburg said I was a liquor pedlar. I challenge him to repeat it outside this House.

Hon. members must now cease making personal remarks. I shall not allow any more to be made.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the hon. member withdraw it unconditionally.

The hon. member may continue.

The hon. member not only created a false impression of our farmers here this afternoon, but he is also wasting our time in this House.

He is a dagga pedlar.

A moment ago I made an appeal to hon. members to cease making personal remarks. The hon. member may continue.

I want to content myself with saying that the wrong impression of our Boland farmers which was created here will boomerang against the Opposition in the election in Worcester where they are in any case fishing on dry land. Our Boland farmers will give judgment to indicate that they support the policy of this Government.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Stellenbosch will excuse me if I do not follow all the arguments which he raised. There is, however, one point I should like to mention. He says it is our policy that the Bantu should be allowed into the White areas in uncontrolled numbers. I must make it quite clear that that is not our policy. My hon. leader has explained that on several occasions. He made it clear that the flow to the White areas should be controlled to a minimum, but that the Bantu who are here should be used to the best advantage. That is the policy of this party, and not as the hon. member for Stellenbosch stated it to be.

I am really concerned with the position in the Eastern Cape, being a representative of Port Elizabeth, an area where large numbers of Bantu are employed. I listened with great interest to the speeches made by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and his Deputies. I was interested to hear what plans the Government has in connection with that particular area. I was disappointed in that no reference was made as to what the position will be in Port Elizabeth. I did understand, however, by way of interjection from the Minister of Bantu Administration that the policy of the 5 per cent repatriation of Bantu applied more specifically to the Western Cape, but as far as he was concerned it could apply to the whole of South Africa. This causes, as far as I am concerned, a certain amount of confusion and concern, because last year during the debate on the Bantu Affairs Vote we were given to understand that the policy of reducing the Bantu labour force did not apply to the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex. I think that we were justified in coming to this conclusion in view of what the Minister said in the Bantu Administration Vote debate on the 12th October, 1966. I quote from Hansard, column 4106—

The position is simply as follows. At the moment there are two parts of the country in particular, and they are the Western Cape and the metropolitan area of the Witwatersrand, where an excessive concentration of Bantu labour does exist, and we are simply going to distribute that excessive concentration of Bantu labour over the border areas as well, and we shall do that even though it may require legislation to prevent the establishment of further Bantu labour-intensive industries at the Witwatersrand and in Cape Town and those other places.

And Port Elizabeth?

Port Elizabeth is a border-line case, because it is very close to the border areas.

Therefore I say that we assumed that this question of the moving of the Bantu labour force away from the Port Elizabeth area did not apply to us. We naturally welcomed that statement because we have a very useful and well-settled labour force, we did not wish it to be interfered with, and we were very happy to have that information from the Minister. But, Sir, in view of the Minister’s remarks now, and the report of a statement made by the hon. the Minister of Planning which appeared in the Press, the position again becomes uncertain as far as the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area is concerned. I will now quote from Die Burger of 20th January, 1967—

Now the position appears quite different as far as Port Elizabeth is concerned. We are now west of this particular line and it means that the Port Elizabeth area falls in an area where Coloured labour gets the advantage. It appears now that the old Eisselen line, as we knew it, has been scrapped, and this new line established which is referred to as the Cat-Fish line. We must now assume that as far as we are concerned we must also be subject to the same labour disturbances as can be anticipated in the Western Cape. I can say without hesitation that if it is going to be disastrous in the Western Cape—as we anticipate it will be—then it will be even more disastrous in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area. I say “more disastrous” very advisedly, because we in the Port Elizabeth area and in the Eastern Cape are even more dependent on Bantu labour than is the case in the Western Cape. One has only to study the statistics of the area to have this fact confirmed.

In the first instance Port Elizabeth has a settled Bantu population of 158,000 souls of whom 40,000 are working males. Of this entire labour force there are at the present time only 134 who are unemployed. It shows, Sir, that that Bantu labour force is in full employment. To make matters even more serious from our point of view, we in Port Elizabeth—because of our settled labour force and unlimited water supplies—are expecting a growth rate in that area of something in the region of 7 per cent per annum. It is clear that this anticipated expansion will absorb all the Bantu labour which becomes available in the foreseeable future. In fact one of the prerequisites of this expansion which will play an important role in increasing the national productivity is this settled labour force which we have in Port Elizabeth. Port Elizabeth cannot afford to have this labour force disturbed in any way.

In addition the people of Port Elizabeth have gone out of their way and spent a great deal of money to provide adequate housing for the Bantu who reside in Port Elizabeth. No less than R15 million has been spent on housing for the Bantu. So I feel that those people will feel very upset indeed if there has to be any retrenchment of this labour force which they are fortunate to have now.

Apart from the industrial expansion and apart from the industries which are presently active in Port Elizabeth, a tremendous number of Bantu are recruited in the reserves each year to augment the labour force which we have there. Not only are the S.A.R. making use of recruited labour, but there is tremendous road construction work being executed which requires Bantu labour. The municipality is also busy at the present time extending the natural infra-structure of the city, and the work makes great demands on the use of imported Bantu.

Therefore, Sir, I think that I have made it quite clear that we in that area are in no position whatsoever to lose any of our presently active Bantu labour force. If it is the intention of the Government to replace the Bantu with Coloured labour, it is interesting to see what the figures are in relation to the Coloured labour force. We find that at the present time there is a Coloured population of some 93,000, of whom 20,000 are employed at the present time. There is no unemployment to speak of and Coloureds are able to find work very readily. This again emphasizes the fact that there is nobody available to replace any displaced Bantu workers. There is no influx control over Coloureds entering the area and all who come in are readily absorbed and readily employed. It must be apparent, therefore, that there is no Coloured labour available whatsoever to take the place of any Bantu who may be moved to the Transkei areas. In this connection it is rather interesting to read something that appeared in The Farmer’s Weekly of 8th February of this year, which I now quote—

I raise this little point— it might be an insignificant point—because we in Port Elizabeth are concerned that, if these people have to move back to the areas whence they came, they will be going to areas, as this little cutting illustrates very amply, where there will be no employment for them. Thus the position of control will become even worse.

Therefore, Sir, on behalf of the people of the Port Elizabeth area, I must emphasize very strongly that we are against this policy of the Government if it is to apply to Port Elizabeth also. We do not want any meddling in our labour force. We are not quite clear as to the position. We should like to hear from the Government what is intended in regard to the Port Elizabeth area, and we will be very grateful to have an answer in that respect as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that with the setting of the sun outside the feelings in this House have also cooled off. It gives me greater courage to raise the subject on which I should like to say a few words. Since the year 1910, 887 hon. members have been elected to this hon. House. Soon, after the election at Worcester, it will reach the interesting figure of 888. What is interesting is that 885 of these hon. members have made their maiden speeches in this House. The 886th one now wants to try to do so. The other one never did. He was elected to the House of Assembly, but he never got here. In the past few days, while I was sweating here in many conflicts of soul and nerves, I frequently wondered whether that friend had not been the most fortunate of all.

In the days and months that have passed since the death of my predecessor, the late Dr. Verwoerd, great and capable men have paid tribute to him in this House. You know, because you had the privilege to be here. The people of South Africa paid tribute to him. The aged shook their heads and told themselves that never in all their years had they seen anything like that. The little children stopped their play and wondered wide-eyed what had happened, because South Africa had visibly come to a standstill. Thus the people and the country paid tribute to him.

To-day I should like to pay tribute to him by order of my voters, not as a Prime Minister, but as member of the House of Assembly and worthy member of parliament, which he was to our constituency, Heidelberg. Our happy association with him began in the year 1958, when the then member of Parliament, Mr. Stephen Eyssen, did not stand for election again and a small group among us had already noticed the potentialities of the then Minister of Native Affairs. We persuaded him and he stood for election in Heidelberg. Since then, until six months ago, it was our pleasant privilege to follow the road of South Africa step by step in the company of our great M.P.

Shall we ever forget how he returned time and again to his constituency, despite the pressure of his work, to attend his constituency management meetings faithfully. Three times a year he regularly addressed report-back meetings in his constituency. He granted an interview to every voter, large or small, rich or poor, yes, no matter how humble, who wanted one. None of their affairs was too small or too insignificant for him.

Shall we ever forget how proud we were in our constituency when our M.P. led our nation into the long desired land of the Republic? When many doubted, the one beautiful facet in his life, namely his great faith, was once again a light on his way and a rock under his foot. He gave his people and his people gave him the Republic of South Africa. Shall we ever forget how his farsightedness unfolded to become the vision of a prophet, and how he led our country timeously out of the Commonwealth? Who would want to be in the Commonwealth to-day?

How clearly his patriotism and his faith in South Africa came to the fore when he spoke about the Orange River Scheme. Then he saw 20 years ahead in his mind’s eye, as we may perhaps see it in 20 years’ time. In his mind’s eye he saw the beautiful irrigation farms, the great power generating installations, the heavy and light industries, the businesses, but above all he saw his contented, prosperous and happy compatriots.

Constantly at his side was a tiny and friendly woman. To him she was a source of strength and an inspiration, and to the mothers and daughters of Heidelberg and South Africa she was an example worthy of following. And in years to come she will be lonely, she will be terribly lonely, because the great figure that protected her and that frequently protected his people, is no more. I therefore want to appeal to our people that we should in future regard her as the mother of the people of South Africa, that we should treat her accordingly, that we should give her the love that would embrace her, for is that not what she gave to us, everything she could give? She is indeed a living, a beautiful legacy from H. F. Verwoerd to his people.

There is an old proverb that says that to be truly great one must also be small. How frequently we had the privilege to see him like that. When he visited the constituency and relaxed on his farm, it was our privilege to see him enjoy himself in his motor boat like a young boy, to see him take the children of his friends on boat trips, and how, when he and his friends travelled across his farm by car, he always refused to let anybody but himself open the gates. For even if there were boys in the car, he always said that he was the host and that he would never allow his guests to do that.

What has left an ineradicable impression was the day we went to help him cut fodder on his farm. That night, when the work was done and the workmen, about 20 of them, were on the lorry and ready to leave, he, the great Prime Minister, the acknowledged Western leader, walked up to the lorry, looked up with a smile, lifted his hand at the workmen and said: “Thank you, men, thank you very much, and fare you well.”

What was also typical was the faith that emanated from his entire being when he persuaded the superstitious Bantu to be ferried across the Vaal River. When his farming on the Vaal River started, his fields adjoined the Vaal River, that is, on the Transvaal side and on the Free State side. Credulous, lacking in faith and superstitious as the Bantu are, they at first refused to cross the Vaal River to the fields on the opposite side. That meant that they had to travel seven miles by road every day to cross a bridge to the fields on the opposite side. For some weeks this detour claimed valuable work hours. The first week-end Dr. Verwoerd visited the farm he solved the problem. That Saturday morning he invited the workmen to get into his boat with him. They looked at him, got into the boat with him, and it is unnecessary to say that that problem of superstition was solved, because up to that point the Bantu had believed that an invisible spirit lurked in the waters of the Vaal River.

His faith in South Africa, in his Creator, in the future was infinite. Thus we in the constituency will always remember that his last words to us were: “South Africa will find oil and the rain will come again.” The rain came again, but he was no longer there. But every time the rain comes we in the constituency will hark back with grateful hearts, but then we will also realize and know with grateful hearts what he would have wanted, namely that we should put our shoulders to the wheel and continue building our Republic of South Africa, his Republic which he loved so very, very dearly.

Mr. Speaker, it is a tradition in this House to congratulate a new member on his maiden speech. I may say that on this occasion it is a real pleasure to congratulate a new member on a speech which in its way has been one of the nicest tributes that we have heard to the late Prime Minister in this House. When I congratulate the hon. member, I do so most sincerely and wish him well in the company in which he now finds himself.

In the course of this debate we have not heard much of finance, and yet the fact remains that every single one of us wants to see South Africa economically strong because on that economic strength can be based not only the prosperity and advancement of the entire population, but also military strength which can safeguard us from dangers outside. It is for that reason that in the course of the past few days attention has been directed to certain aspects of Government policy which in themselves not only would interfere with the normal economic development of the country, but might by forcing up costs of production and by forcing uneconomic development have an effect upon the economic growth of the country and the well-being of all its citizens.

I think attention has been directed particularly to two aspects of that policy. The one aspect is the question of the establishment of industry in border areas subject to certain privileges and certain inducements, and the other aspect is the attempt to limit the labour force in certain areas and in fact to try to direct it away.

I think that we on this side of the House have felt that both those activities were in danger of having an inflationary effect upon the economy. It was for that reason that particular attention has been directed to it. We have been met with replies which would seem to indicate, certainly in so far as the Western Cape is concerned, that the industrialists in this area supported this policy, and that in so far as the farmers in the Western Province were concerned they in their turn supported this policy.

But, Sir, I have had great difficulty in appreciating how that situation can arise. I am faced with a statement by the hon. the Deputy Minister dealing with this question of the industrialists in the area. He said—

—and the Deputy Minister mentioned certain people—

“Daardie beleid” in this respect is the 5 per cent reduction annually of the Bantu labour force in this area. The names mentioned are those of Mr. Mossop, Mr. Marks and Mr. I. L. Back.

I see also that this Deputy Minister gave an interview to the Financial Gazette last weekend in which he claims that he has received unanimous support from industries and farmers in the Western Cape to carry out his policy of clearing the Western Cape of Bantu labour. He said that both the Cape Chamber of Industries and the Federated Chamber of Industries have given him the assurance of their full support. He spoke of deputations from the farming community who had also come to see him, and from no one has he received any complaint.

I, of course, cannot query the word of the hon. gentleman, but if that is the sort of support that he is getting, then it seems to me a little bit extraordinary that we have had a certain statement, after his visit to the Cape Chamber of Industries, by certain of the leading officials of that Chamber. First of all there was the speech made by the retiring President of the Cape Chamber of Industries, after the hon. the Deputy Minister had visited that Chamber. In that speech the retiring President says—

That speech was by the retiring President, Mr. Mossop, from whom the hon. gentleman claimed support. This speech was made on the 24th November, 1966, after the visit of the Deputy Minister to the October meeting.