I move—

At the present moment there is a consolidatory measure being dealt with by a Select Committee with regard to the 1926 National Parks Act and various amendments which have been made to it from time to time. I want to pass this Bill as soon as possible to clear up certain anomalies and inconsistencies, so that these matters can be dealt with and incorporated in the consolidatory measure which will then be presented to this House.

These inconsistencies and anomalies have to do with the establishment of new parks and the inclusion and exclusion of land in national parks, and also with regard to the question of the ending of the financial year of our national parks. I will deal with these matters in seriatim.

We have no power at present to establish a new national park without coming to Parliament and actually altering the Parks Act, and what we want to be able to do here is to have the same powers which administrators have, and that is to declare any area a national park as we might think fit from time to time. Now I do not think Members of Parliament have any objections whatsoever to land being added or acquired for national parks, but what they are very jealous about is the exclusion of land from national parks. Now, Sir, we are asking in the first place the power to declare an area as a national park. Secondly, we ask the power to include or exclude land from established national parks. According to the Act land can be included in an existing national park by proclamation of the State President, but only if that land is State land, Now it might be said that all the land in the National Park is State land, and that is perfectly correct, and that if we acquire land for addition to a national park, that land must first become State land, and then we hand it over to the national parks, but there is some legal doubt in that respect and that is if land is specifically acquired from a private owner for an addition to a national park, the question is whether we would not have to go to Parliament and have the whole Parks Act altered every time that is done. Now, as hon. members know, we have had various adjustments from time to time, especially on the western boundaries of the Kruger National Park where we are trying to iron out the curves and the bays and the prominences there, and as the new Act stands we will not be able to come to Parliament merely for its condonation, but we will actually have to bring in the Parks Act to amend it every time. We want to go back to the old Act as it was and say that land can be acquired by proclamation by the President, and that it does not specifically refer to State land but also to private land which we might get from time to time. The legal position is that if it is acquired specifically for the purpose of handing it to the national parks, it is doubtful whether the procedure I have mentioned would not have to be followed.

The next point is the question of the exclusion of land. From time to time we have excluded land from a national park. Generally speaking it has taken place on the western border of the Kruger National Park where we have exchanged land with private owners, and in those cases we have to come now to Parliament with amending legislation, and what we are asking here is to go back to the old Act as it stood, which says that any land excluded from a national park can only be excluded by proclamation of the State President if a motion to that effect has been passed by both Houses of Parliament. That, I think, gives hon. members the certainty that land will not be excluded from the national parks without the necessary publicity and the concurrence of the Members of Parliament themselves.

The last clause is merely to substitute the word “March” by the word “October”. The financial year of the national parks ends at present at 31 March, but actually their financial year ends at the end of October, that is to say after the season, and they want to get their books squared up after the season. Now six months before the season ends their books have to be squared up and for administrative purposes it will be much more convenient for them and much better that their financial year should end at 31 October instead of 31 March.

We on this side of the House wish to assist the hon. the Minister as much as possible to enable him to have this amending Bill included in the new consolidated Act, now before the Select Committee. I suppose that is also a little problem, but I take it the hon. the Minister knows how to steer a new amending Bill through Parliament and have it incorporated in a consolidating Bill which is already before the Select Committee.

We also wish to facilitate the creation of new national parks. We have always been jealous of the provincial councils who have had the ability at their pleasure to buy and create as many national parks as they like, whereas the Government has been curtailed in keeping within the schedule of the National Parks Act, which the hon. the Minister alluded to. I had hoped that the hon. the Minister would have given us some more definite reasons for wanting to introduce this Bill and to have these powers. He could for instance have told us that the Bill was being brought forward with the idea of creating more national parks. We all know how the Outeniquas offer advantages not excelled by any other park in this country and I hope that the hon. the Minister when he has these powers will give due consideration to this matter. We also appreciate that the hon. the Minister has said that in regard to the selling of portions of a park or an exchange of land, the Minister has to come to Parliament and that no ground can be alienated or excluded or detached from any such parks except under the authority of a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. So we are satisfied that we do have this safeguard, and we do hope that the hon. the Minister with the facilities we are granting him under this Bill will also perhaps take advantage of these facilities and extend our parks where necessary and that he will give this question of the Outeniquas special consideration.

I wish to support this Bill for the following reasons: Do you know, Sir, that in the dry north-western areas we also have one or two parks, and because the rainfall is as poor as it is and because the vegetation usually adapts itself to the rainfall, there is not the equal distribution of vegetation that we find in other parts of the country. Consequently the parks, as originally demarcated and proclaimed, are such that it is clear that account has not always been taken of the grazing habits of the animals, even less with the way they trek to find grazing. The latter is determined, inter alia, by the vegetation and the nutritional value of that vegetation, as well as the necessary minerals available in the limited area. You find sometimes, Sir, that through the centuries the grazing habits of animals have been restricted by those factors and that those areas have not been included in the parks which were proclaimed at the time. The animals were, therefore, compelled to break through fences on to private property. It may be that when the Government has the opportunity of solving this grazing problem it will have to purchase in competition. When a Parks Board purchases in competition with private individuals it should be able to act quickly. As the law stands to-day it cannot do so. This Bill makes it possible to compete when a seller is prepared to sell.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. G. P. Kotze) has advanced one argument but there are many other arguments that he could have advanced. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) said that he had hoped that I would advance more arguments. But the hon. member for Gordonia has advanced one and that is that people come from time to time and offer us land for a national park. Usually when they do that they have had an offer for that land from somebody else, but they would rather see that land converted into a national park. We then have to say to them: “Well, we cannot give you any assurance; it will take six or nine months before we can get such a motion through the House of Assembly and the Senate.” Then the owner simply says: “Well, the other person is here and he will pay me to-morrow.” As the wife of the soldier who said “You have got nothing that he has not got, but he has got it here”; the buyer has the money there and we lose that land. That has happened on numerous occasions.

The hon. member for Albany asked whether we were contemplating any new national parks at the moment. We are contemplating three at the moment and this legislation will assist us in putting our plans into practice sooner. The one is a coastal park, a sea park or a beach park (call it what you may) in order to preserve, in its natural state, the vegetation and other biological phenomena on a piece of land abutting the sea along our coast; it will be in the Tsitsikama area. I have made a point of preserving the normal rights of people to have access to the beach and for people to indulge in the pleasurable pastime of angling, but the gathering of bait and that sort of thing will be prohibited so that the natural vegetation and the animals along that piece of coast line will be preserved. The second is a piece of primeval forest in the Tsitsikama area of approximately 500 morgen. It is a beautiful forest which we are going to hand over to the National Parks Board to convert into a forest park. I think it is something which will be of great value to us because since I have been Minister of Forestry, and I may add that the present heads of the Department of Forestry have assisted me greatly in this, I have tried to get the ordinary public interested in our forests. In the past our primeval forests and other forests have been pushed into the background and any visitor was received with a great measure of unfriendliness. We are now changing the position and encouraging the people to go and see what the State is doing as far as afforestation is concerned and enjoy the beauty of our natural forests. We now have 500 morgen there of beautiful primeval forest that has never been cut, with beautiful natural trees which will be converted into a national park. It lies along the national road and will be a great asset to us. The third one that we are considering will interest the hon. member for Gordonia; it is near the Aughrabies waterfall. That is the highest waterfall in the Republic. It is more than 130 feet higher than the Victoria waterfall. It is very picturesque and the Provincial Administration is constructing roads leading up to it, but when the waterfall is at its best, it is inaccessible, because a great number of rivers have their confluence there which makes it impossible for you to get to the fall. The Provincial Administration will assist in making it accessible in times when the Orange River is in flood, when there is a great deal of water, and we shall convert that into a national park and protect it from the spoliation which often takes place when a beautiful bit of nature is left at the mercy of the public without any supervision. Those are the three national parks which we envisage at the moment. I must say that the National Parks Board is amazingly enthusiastic as far as national parks are concerned. I think they would even declare me a national park if they had the opportunity. I have to deal with their requests to me with a certain measure of circumspection, and I have to apply the brake every now and then but I think hon. members opposite are fully aware of it that the question of national parks and the protection of our animals and vegetation in South Africa is something which is very dear to my heart, and that I shall not stand in the way where it is justified that our national parks be developed further.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to submit a point of order for your consideration. It is my contention that this Bill, containing as it does Clause 22, is in breach of the provisions of our Constitution, and while that provision is a part of the Bill, it is not competent for this House to consider it.

I wish to refer in the first place to our Constitution, the Act to Constitute the Republic of South Africa and to provide for matters incidental thereto. I am referring in the first instance to a provision which is contained in Section 114 of that Act. I propose to quote only paragraph (b), which is the relevent paragraph—

I believe it will be accepted by all that there has been no petition by the provincial councils which are concerned in this matter. In this regard I refer also to other provisions of the Constitution, and in particular to Section 84 which sets out the powers of provincial councils, and that section reads as follows—

It is my submission, Sir, that this Bill deals with “institutions of a similar nature” and that it is necessary before such a Bill can be considered by Parliament that the provisions of the Constitution should be honoured and petitions should be submitted to Parliament by the provincial council or councils concerned. I am aware that in our Constitution Section 59 provides as follows—

It will be accepted by all that it is a standard principle of construction that where there are provisions in a statute in conflict one with another, the later provision is the provision which governs the matter. The provision I have just quoted is in Section 59. Very much later we come to the provision of Section 84 and then the provisions of Section 114 whereby limitations were placed upon the competence of this Parliament by the last Parliament of the Union of South Africa. I am aware that Section 114 previously appeared in an Act which was repealed by the Constitution establishing the Republic—I refer to Act No. 45 of 1934, which contains the identical words which I have quoted to you, Sir, and which now appear in Section 114 of the South Africa Act. Act 45 of 1934, inserted in the South Africa Act. Act 45 of 1934, inserted in the South Africa Act this provision in relation to provincial councils. It is common cause I believe, Sir, and certainly it was the belief of the hon. the Minister who had charge of that Bill which was finally passed as an Act in the old Union Parliament, that this provision was a provision which, not being entrenched in any way, could be ignored by Parliament. But, Sir, that position has changed entirely with the enactment of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. We are now dealing with a piece of fundamental law. It is fundamental in that it is the basic Constitution of South Africa. It was placed there by a dying Parliament, it was placed there by the last Parliament of the Union of South Africa before the declaration of a Republic. That Parliament, by placing Section 114 in the Act, obviously intended that it should have a meaning, and it forms now part of our basic Constitution, and it is a provision which so long as it remains unaltered, must be respected by this Parliament. If one looks at the provisions of this Bill further, we find that it is provided in Section 118 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution—

Now, Sir, that refers to certain rights which are especially entrenched, namely the language rights in South Africa. It is true that Section 118 provides that—

If it is the intention of the Government to repeal the provisions of Section 114, then I submit that the procedure which must be followed is that the provisions of that section should be repealed and not ignored so shortly after their enactment. It may be suggested that what has happened in the incorporation of this provision in this Bill is going no further than the provisions of Act 77 of 1957. I will point out the differences in a moment. In Section 25 of Act 77 of 1957 which it is proposed to amend in certain respects in terms of Bill A.B. 41 of 1962, as I have pointed out, there are provisions which are proposed to be substituted for the provisions of Section 25 (1). Let me say at once, Sir, that I concede that Section 25 (1) of the Group Areas Act, No. 77 of 1957, was itself to a very limited extent an inroad on the powers of local authorities. It provided for the establishment of governing bodies in certain areas. At the time that Act was passed it was acknowledged on all hands that the 1934 amendment of the South Africa Act was no more than the expression of a pious wish. That has been changed completely by the re-enactment of that provision in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. I wish to point out the differences in the two sections, because quite apart from the provisions of the 1957 Act, the provisions of the sections proposed to be inserted in the Group Areas Act go very, very much further than the original provisions for governing bodies. In Clause 22 of the Bill to amend the group areas legislation in this country, Section 25 of the principal Act is in effect repealed and a new sub-section (25) is substituted and there is an addition of a new Section 25bis, in Clause 22 of the Bill. Clause 22 (1) provides for consultative and management committees for certain group areas and it provides—

in terms of this clause. The original section provided for that. If you compare the original Section 25 as it now stands in the law with the proposed new Section 25 as contained in Clause 22 of this Bill, you will find that there are material differences. Sub-section (3) of Clause 22 provides that—

That provision in itself is a provision which is within the competence of provincial councils and consequently in terms of Section 114 of our Constitution Act, not within the competence of this Parliament, except where there has been a resolution of the Provincial Council requesting that it should enact such legislation. But when you go further, Sir, you will find that the provisions of Section 25bis which are also proposed to be inserted, go very much further. This provides for the establishment of local authorities for areas for which management committees have been established. The provisions of this clause allow of the authorities under the Group Areas Act (assuming this Bill is passed in law), namely the Department of Community Development under the hon. the Minister, to exclude from the area of jurisdiction of a local authority, a portion of its area and to set up another local authority to deal wholly or partly with those matters within that area which are proper to be dealt with by a local authority. Section 3 of the proposed new Section 25bis provides for consultation with the Administrator whereas under the present provision in the 1957 Act there is provision for “acting in concurrence with the Administrator” which is a very different matter. There is provision here that—

Now, what this section is proposing to do, Sir, is to vest the power in the hon. the Minister and his Department to instruct the Administrator, “notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law concerned (in other words, notwithstanding the provisions of the Republican Constitution; notwithstanding the law governing local authorities in that province) to take or cause to be taken all steps which are necessary for the proper establishment for that area.” … Then strangely enough, Sir, having provided that the laws can be overridden, it says … “in terms of the laws in force in his province, of a local authority of the type so specified …”

Sir, I do not think it is necessary to go further to establish that this is in breach of the powers of provincial councils. But perhaps it is necessary for me to quote sub-section (5). It provides this—

This clause, therefore, if it is translated into law, will make further inroads on the powers of the provincial councils because it allows of His Excellency, the State President, by proclamation in the Gazette, to repeal, alter, amend or modify any law. Now that again, I submit, is contrary to the provisions of the Republican Constitution and I am sure, Sir, that you would wish to uphold those provisions.

Nothing but obstruction.

Mr. Speaker, I take the strongest objection, when I am seeking to address you on a matter of very great public importance, that the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) should interject and say this is pure obstruction. I take the strongest objection to that and I ask that he should be made to withdraw it.

Did the hon. member for Cradock say that?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make an appeal to hon. members in this House that when one is dealing with the Constitution of the Republic they should show the respect which is required.

Order! The hon. member must proceed with his argument.

I shall do so, Sir. The position, therefore, in my submission is clear. The Bill which is before this House seeks to alter the law in relation to local authorities. This Bill if passed will permit his Excellency, the State President, through the hon. the Minister, after consultation with the Administrator (who would have to abide by the provisions of this law, he is not a free agent), to act in matters which are proper to be dealt with, in terms of our Constitution, only by a provincial council. The provisions of the law in relation to our provincial councils are perfectly clear. I would like to refer very briefly once again to Section 84 which makes it quite clear that legislation relating to municipal institutions are matters proper to be dealt with by the provincial councils. That right, Sir, is entrenched by the provisions of the other section which I have quoted, Section 114 of the Republican Constitution Act. We must be very clear on this that section, now being part of the Constitution, is of full validity. The provisions of the 1934 Statute did not enjoy the same effect as that was an ordinary Act of Parliament which did not bind Parliament and could be altered at any time. There can be no question whatsoever as to the correctness of my argument. I submit you, Sir, are bound to hold, there is a conflict between the provisions of Section 59 of the Republican Constitution Act, which deals with the powers of Parliament, and Clause 114 dealing with the powers of the provincial councils. But it is abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, that the later provision, namely, Section 114, is the governing provision in this matter. That being so, Sir, it is quite clear to me, and I submit it to you for your consideration, that the Group Areas Amendment Bill may not be proceeded with by this House, so long as it contains Clause 22 which proposes to insert certain sections in Act 77 of 1957. Or alternatively, until there has been laid upon the Table of this House and there is in your charge, proof that all the provincial councils have petitioned Parliament to pass legislation in this form.

In those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you uphold the Constitution and that you rule that this Bill may not be proceeded with in its present form until the other requirements have been met.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support the arguments that have been advanced by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). It is clearly the intention in Section 114 to bind Parliament. It will be argued that Parliament cannot bind its successors. But the very first point which I wish to raise is that this House is not Parliament by itself. This House is a part of Parliament. Parliament consists of this House, of Another Place and the State President. The law which stands at the moment is an Act of Parliament which binds this House. [Interjections.] It may not bind Parliament, but it binds this House.

Order! If any hon. member should care to take part in this discussion on the point of order, I shall give him an opportunity to do so. But when any hon. member addresses me on this point of Order, I should like him to be allowed to do so undisturbed, so that I can hear what he has to say.

In order to determine what the intention of Section 114 is, I submit, it is necessary to look at the history of this section. This section replaces the old Section 149 of the South Africa Act. That section was put into the South Africa Act as it stands now in 1934 and it was put in as a direct consequence of the passing of the Status of the Union Act. The Status of the Union Act provided that, amongst other things, it was not possible any more for the Governor-General to reserve Bills passed by the Union Parliament for the King’s pleasure. One of the matters in respect of which it was compulsory to reserve for the King’s pleasure was Bills dealing with the boundaries of the provinces and Bills which abridged the powers of the provincial councils. In other words, Sir, until 1934 it was not possible for this Parliament to pass an Act abridging provincial councils’ powers. So in 1934, when the Status Act was passed these restrictions on the powers of the Union Parliament as such were removed. It was then, Sir, as a consequence of that, that Section 149 of the South Africa Act was repealed and replaced by what is presently in Section 114 of the Republican Constitution Act. It is interesting to note, and important I submit, that Section 149 read, before it was amended, that “Parliament ‘may’ alter the boundaries of any province, divide a province into two or more provinces, or form a new province out of provinces within the Union on the petition of the provincial council of every province whose boundaries are affected thereby”. No mention at all of abridging their powers. Because it was feared that the Union Parliament would do so the Act of 1934 altering Section 149 was passed. It is my sub-mission that it was clearly intended that no such legislation should be passed by the Union Parliament unless there was indeed such a petition.

That being the position, the Constitution Act providing that Parliament may not do so, the question does arise as to whether or not Parliament is sovereign. This House is not Parliament, as I have said. This House is merely a part of Parliament and my submission to you, Sir, is that you should rule, with respect, that this House should not be allowed to be party to breaking the law of the Republic of South Africa. This Bill, presented in this way, if it were passed, would be a breaking of the law. It would be unconstitutional in the legal sense and I am not even arguing whether it is constitutional in the moral sense. I want to go a little further. If you do not uphold the argument advanced on the score that this Bill does in fact abridge the powers of the provinces, then there is an alternative suggestion and that is that in Clause 22 of this Bill, the proposed Section 25bis (5), provides that not only can Parliament deal with matters entrusted to provincial councils but that power is now to be given to the State President. In other words, that power is now to be given to the Minister. And, Sir, if anything could be further removed from the intention of Parliament when the Constitution Act was passed, then I submit it is that.

I have listened carefully to the arguments of the hon. members for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). The point of Order is an important one as it questions the right of Parliament to proceed with certain legislation.

In my opinion Section 84 of the Constitution does not confer on provincial councils the exclusive power to legislate in regard to the various matters enumerated in that section. Section 59 of the Constitution, furthermore, provides that Parliament shall be the sovereign legislative authority in and over the Republic and shall have full power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Republic.

I must therefore rule that it is competent for the House to proceed with the Bill.

The advisability of Parliament proceeding with this legislation, or with legislation dealing with any other matter specially delegated to provincial councils under Section 84, is a question of policy which, I feel, must rest with the House itself.

I move—

The principle of the policy of own urban areas for the White, Coloured, Indian and Chinese communities in the Republic has been accepted by Parliament by the passing of the Group Areas Act and the Urban Areas Act. You, Sir, quite correctly will not allow me to discuss that principle and I am not going to do so. That principle envisages the following practical results: Firstly the creation and maintenance of occupational and ownership rights for each racial group in its own area. Secondly, the opportunity for individual and community development. Thirdly, the right of self-expression and opportunities for new outlets in the economic and other fields. Fourthly, the right to exercise control over local government by the group concerned.

The measure I am introducing to-day is to bring about these practical effects in the shortest period possible. The progress made with the proclamation and development of areas for the various racial groups as well as with the general activities flowing from Group Areas legislation and matters incidental thereto was so encouraging that it was found imperative to establish a new Department with effect from 1 August 1961. The creation of this Department and various other factors with which I shall deal during the course of my speech, render the introduction of the Bill now before the House necessary. Hon. members will recollect that I referred to the re-organization which was being carried out in the administration of Group Areas legislation on various previous occasions. This re-organization has found its logical conclusion in the formation of the Department of Community Development with the Group Areas Board and the Group Areas Development Board as organs of the new Department.

One handicap in the past was the fact that these two boards functioned largely independently of one another. Each had a considerable number of officials serving under their direction. There was also a degree of uncertainty as to the responsibilities of the Group Areas Development Board and the Housing Commission respectively in regard to the provision of residential accommodation for persons displaced as a result of the application of the Group Areas legislation. These difficulties have now been removed. On the recommendation of the Public Service Commission all the civil servants and other employees have been transferred from the jurisdiction of the boards to the Department of Community Development. Five vacancies which occurred on the Group Areas Board were not filled. Those members who had been detached for service at various points in the Republic were drawn into Pretoria. This arrangement is conducive to more efficient consultation and deliberation. Of the present seven members, one is a professor of Economics and one a town planner of considerable standing.

I shall deal later with the re-constitution of the Group Areas Development Board. These two bodies have now become organs of the Department of Community Development in very much the same way, as for example the Wage Board is linked with the Department of Labour, that is without their independence in the exercise of their discretion in the matters entrusted to them being affected in any way. In this Bill provision is made for all the administrative and executive work flowing from the duties and functions of these bodies to be performed by the Secretary for Community Development and the staff entrusted to him. The various activities dovetail into one another to such a degree that very important changes have been effected in regard to the allocation of functions, the sequence and manner in which steps are to be taken and in the concatenation of powers and responsibilities under the authority of the head of the Department. The amendments necessary to give effect hereto are proposed in various clauses of the Bill.

In the execution of the task of the establishment and development of communities, the two boards will operate within the framework of the Department which is organized for all purposes into two major divisions namely Planning and Development. The recommendations and proposals of the two boards are where necessary submitted to the Secretary of the Department in the first instance, who will submit them to the Minister together with such comments and recommendations as he may wish to offer. This will give the Minister the additional benefit of his independent and expert advice on such proposals. I may add that the present Secretary was, up till last year, the Chairman of the Group Areas Board. Apart from the head office organization, regional under-secretaries at Pretoria, Pietermaritzburg, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town are in charge of the provincial organizations with sub-offices at Johannesburg, Durban and Kimberley. These offices will as far as possible deal with matters emanating from within their areas and will facilitate the administration of Group Areas legislation to a considerable extent. They will, moreover, be of great assistance to all members of the public.

The clauses in the Bill which deal with the establishment of the Department and matters incidental thereto are inter alia Clauses Nos. 1 (c), 1 (d), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 26 (a), 26 (b), 29 (e), 29 (g), 37, 39 (a), 39 (b), 43, 46 and 54. These clauses are self-explanatory and need not be further enlarged upon. The provision of residential accommodation has been entrusted to the Housing Commission and the Department of Housing, except where the ground required for the purpose is too expensive to be developed within the framework of the housing policy as it has been developed during the past years. In that case the Department of Housing functions as the agent of the Department of Community Development and at the expense of the Development Fund, for which provision is made in this Bill.

But it remains the responsibility of the Department as now constituted to plan and develop group areas with a view to its major task of developing the various social units in such a way that the members of the respective population groups live together in their own areas, progressively developing as socioeconomic units in the social, educational and cultural fields where, as far as possible, all the different vocations and professions are pursued by the members of the particular group and where they undertake their own local management. As a result the closest liaison has been established between the Department and the Department of Housing.

The Department must in the circumstances concern itself with many matters such as township planning, job opportunity, economic activities, social, cultural and educational facilities, etc. In many cases other specialized departments will be required to provide these services, but in doing so it is imperative that the objects of the Department of Community Development are achieved. In this connection I may mention, for example, that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has appointed a senior official of the Department as a member of a subsidiary committee to the Board for the Development of Natural Resources, to advise through that board of which the head of the Department is a co-opted member on the physical and industrial planning required for the needs of the various racial groups.

The material and social needs of every community is indeed of major importance in the establishment of communities. Vocational fields such as commerce, medicine, pharmaceutics, home industries, the hotel industry, restaurants, the provision of places of entertainment, the pursuit of the different trades, participation in industry and so forth, must be developed in the respective areas by and in the interests of the communities concerned, and these are matters in which the Department must play an active role. In many cases it will have to take the initiative in conjunction with the other specialized departments concerned.

Before I leave the subject of the establishment of the Department, I think it fitting to give a few statistics on the progress which has already been made by the Department. More than 500 group areas have already been proclaimed and substantial progress has been made with the development of these areas. For this purpose I can do no better than to quote figures in respect of a number of centres which will give an indication of what is being done throughout the Republic.

At Lenasia, a full group area for Indians, 640 houses are being erected at a contract price of R1,056,953; 224 of these houses have been completed, and practically all of them have already been allotted to Indians who have been resettled where they have become disqualified or homeless persons. According to the contract, all these houses at Lenasia must be completed on 22 August 1962. In addition thereto, 200 more Indian families have been housed temporarily at Lenasia, and business premises for R32,480 and office buildings for R43,350 are being built. These buildings must be completed before 5 November 1962.

At Bosmont, a township for Coloureds, 160 houses are being erected, at a cost of R303,018. The ultimate erection of 696 houses at Bosmont is being planned, and a minimum of 969 Coloured families will therefore be established there in their own area under most improved conditions. Plans for the construction of business premises at a cost of R16,000 at Bosmont are also being considered. One hundred and twenty houses have been completed at Athlone (Duinefontein), and 255 at a total cost of R670,432 will be available before the end of August 1962. A total of 500 houses is being erected there departmentally and the City Council of Cape Town is also constructing 8,000 houses with funds provided by the Department of Housing in the Cape, of which one-fifth is allotted to persons who have to be resettled.

Other institutions are also erecting 3,000 dwellings at Bellville, Heathfield and Retreat, and on completion of all these schemes sufficient accommodation will be available for disqualified persons in Cape Town and Bellville. Of 3,300 Coloured families at Goodwood who need housing, provision is made for the housing of 1,900 families at Bishop Lavis. The other 1,400 families will be provided for within the next few years. In Kimberley, where there are 177 disqualified White families and also disqualified families of all other racial groups, active steps are being taken to provide for the resettlement of these disqualified persons in their own areas. At Pretoria almost 50 per cent of the Indians are living happily in their own township, and building for the Coloureds is well in hand. Durban’s housing projects embracing, inter alia, some 20,000-odd residential units for Indians are taking shape. The Cape Town City Council has undertaken the building of shops for sale and lease to Coloured traders, a most important step. I can continue quoting similar figures in respect of numerous other places in the Republic, but I will not pursue the matter further since the examples quoted are sufficient to prove the very good progress which is being made.

Mr. Speaker, the information which I have furnished is, moreover, adequate to dispel the predictions that group areas legislation cannot be implemented, and I am convinced it is no longer necessary to argue as to whether we should have group areas or not. Apart from the fact that Parliament accepted the principle, the development of communities in these areas has come to stay and as the few figures which I have given clearly illustrate, the development of communities in their own areas is practically possible. The new Department has gone a long way in the achievement of this object since its establishment a few months ago.

I now come to the second point I wish to deal with, namely local government. The development of the non-White groups to a stage where they can take over responsibility for local government in their own areas is one of the major tasks of the Department of Community Development. This leads one to Clause 22 of the Bill. The proposals contained in this clause are based on the recommendations of a special Committee appointed by me, which inquired into and reported on development of local management for non-Whites (excluding Bantu) in cities and towns. This Committee consisted of representatives of the Departments of Community Development and Coloured Affairs and of senior officials entrusted with the administrative machinery of local government in the four provinces of the Republic. This Committee carried out intensive inquiries, visited all four provinces and had interviews and comprehensive discussions with, inter alia, representatives of the Provincial Administrations of the Provinces, the Local Health Commission of Natal, the Divisional Council in the Cape, the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board in the Transvaal, the Executive Committee of the Union Council for Coloured Affairs, the Executive Committees of the four municipal organizations and the Secretary of the Joint Municipal Organization of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recently referred to the positive development programme for the Coloured population. The proposals contained in Clause 22 are in furtherance of that policy and represent, indeed, a bold and important step in the development of local management for non-Whites other than Bantu.

Before explaining the clauses, I must mention that due consideration was given to the question as to how far the non-White, with more emphasis on the Coloured, has moved into the field of local management, and his capability of managing his own affairs. Doubts were expressed as to the capability of the Coloured people in general to manage their own affairs as far as local government is concerned. On the other hand, it is clear that there are centres where these people have developed far enough to justify their being entrusted with this responsibility. The proposed legislation has therefore been drafted to provide for the creation of machinery for the training of non-Whites to a stage where full responsibility for local government in their own areas may be bestowed upon them. These steps are dealt with in the proposed new Section 25. The enabling provisions for the granting of local government proper to non-Whites other than Bantu are contained in the proposed new Section 25bis.

I first wish to deal with the proposed new Section 25. The proposals here, Sir, are that the Minister may establish for any group area other than a group area for the White group, or for any portion of such group area, which is situated within the area of jurisdiction of a local authority, or for any two or more such group areas or portions of group areas (whether continuous or not) either a consultative committee or a management committee to be constituted in accordance with regulation. The establishment of these committees is a very important and active step in the direction of developing the non-White groups to a stage where full responsibility for local government in their own areas may be bestowed upon them, and it is felt that the Department of Community Development could, by means of the machinery now provided in co-operation with local authorities, take the initiative to acquaint the non-White groups concerned with the involved and intricate machinery of local government.

The consultative committee or management committee must consist wholly of members of the group for which such group area or areas have been established. The manner of constitution, including the election of all or some of the members of these committees, may be determined by regulation.

As far as a consultative committee is concerned, a local authority which exercises jurisdiction in an area for which such committee has been established may not take any decision in regard to any matter in respect of which such committee is to be consulted in terms of regulations which will be issued by the State President, unless it has consulted such committee and has given due consideration to any suggestion or comments which such committee may wish to make. This provision is indicative of the earnest desire to ensure that local authorities give the most serious consideration to proposals of the consultative committee. These committees will, as I have indicated, afford an opportunity to members of the non-White groups to become acquainted with the involved machinery of local management.

Clause 28 contains provisions for the making of regulations as to the manner of constitution of consultative committees, the tenure of office of members of such committees, the filling of vacancies on such committees, prescribing the matters on which such committees are to be consulted and various other matters incidental to the establishment of these committees.

A management committee shall within the area for which it has been established have such powers, functions and duties of the local authority which has jurisdiction in respect of such area as may be conferred or imposed upon it by or under regulation. Such management committee shall, moreover, exercise its powers, carry out its functions and perform its duties under the supervision and control of that local authority and subject to such conditions as the Administrator concerned may determine. These provisions make it clear that the powers of the management committee are strictly limited to that of the local authority having jurisdiction, and that these committees will function as a full committee of the controlling local authority.

In terms of the proposed Section 43bis (1) (g) and (h), the powers, functions and duties of a management committee (within the framework of the proposed Section 25 (4) may be prescribed by regulation, as also the powers, functions and duties of the local authority concerned in connection with any matter in respect of which powers, functions or duties have been conferred or imposed upon the management committee. The details of the powers to be conferred on the management committees will be decided upon and determined in the light of the circumstances prevailing at each particular place, but it is obvious that the machinery is being provided for these management committees to play a most important part in local government by non-Whites in their own group areas, and moreover, to develop their capabilities of accepting the full responsibility for their own local self-government.

I wish to add that the rights of persons who are registered as voters for the election of members of a local authority are not affected by the provisions of the proposed new Section 43bis (1) (d), since it is provided that persons who are qualified as voters for any management committee and who are or were not on the date upon which they became so qualified already registered as voters for the election of members of a local authority, shall not while they remain so qualified be registered as voters for the election of members of a local authority, The qualifications for registration as voters for these committees can be prescribed by regulation. (Interjections.) Mr. Speaker, I am paying the hon. members opposite the courtesy of addressing them in their own language. If they do not prefer it, I shall stop. I referred to the granting to non-Whites of full responsibility for local government in their own areas at the outset of my remarks on the proposed new Section 25. This step is imperative to carry the proposals in the new Section 25 to their logical conclusion.

It is the earnest desire of the Government not to enter the acknowledged field of activity of Provincial Administrations, and the proposed new Section 25bis has as far as possible been drafted in accordance with this policy. As I will explain shortly, the carrying out of the policy envisaged in the proposed section is almost entirely left to the Administrator of the province concerned. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, where the Government finds it necessary to take the steps embodied in the proposed new Section 25, it is inevitable that the Government should also be able to initiate the establishment of local authorities for non-Whites in their own areas. But consultation with the Administrator has been made a prerequisite for even these initiating stages.

The proposed new Section 25bis accordingly provides, firstly, for the appointment by the Minister of a Committee consisting of not more than five members, of whom at least one shall be a person nominated by the Administrator of the province concerned to investigate and report upon the desirability or otherwise of establishing a local authority for any area comprising an area for which the management committee (in other words, a group area or areas for non-Whites) has been established, or comprising two or more areas for which such committees have been established. It provides, secondly, for the establishment by the Administrator of a local authority for the area in respect of which the investigation was made or for any area within it. The direction of the Minister which can only be given after consideration of the report of the Committee to which I have referred and consultation with the Administrator are, however, prerequisites to the establishment of a local authority by the Administrator in terms of the proposed Section 25bis. It is futhermore provided that the Administrator shall upon such indication from the Minister take or cause to be taken all steps which are necessary for the proper establishment for that area in terms of the laws in force in his province, of a local authority of a type specified by the Minister. I may mention that the ordinances of all four provinces provide for the establishment of various types of local authorities, e.g. a health committee, a village management board and a town council. I wish to add that a local authority established in terms of this proposed provision shall for all purposes be a local authority established by the Administrator in the ordinary way.

The question of municipal franchise must also be dealt with. As hon. members are aware, non-Whites at present only enjoy franchise rights in the Cape Province. These rights, however, only give the non-White community of the Cape Province a very limited say in the affairs of local government. The proposals now before the House will afford the Provincial Administrations of the four provinces the opportunity of expanding those rights to non-Whites. This of course can only be done within the framework of the policy envisaged in the proposed Section 25bis, and the expansion of the franchise rights will have to be limited to non-Whites in the areas for which a local authority has been established in accordance with the procedure I have already outlined. The proposed Section 25bis (5) contains the provisions to ensure the carrying out of this policy.

Apart from the matters already dealt with, proposed amendments to three further sections of the Group Areas Act of 1957 merit specific reference in this speech. The first is an amendment to Section 5 of the Act, which is contained in Clause 3 of the Bill. In terms of this proposal, the Department of Community Development will ask for and advertise proposals in connection with the group areas, and not the Group Areas Board, as hitherto. This procedure, in the first place, is consequential on the establishment of the Department of Community Development which is entrusted with the performance of the administrative work connected with and flowing from the exercise of its functions by the Group Areas Board. The fact that the Department asks for proposals and advertises these proposals relieves the Board from unnecessary administrative work, and moreover has the advantage that proposals can be dealt with more expeditiously.

In the second place, this amendment will, however, have the further advantage of enabling the Board to adjudicate on proposals without having made itself a party to such proposals at any stage before the final deliberations. In this connection I must immediately point out that the Board has up to now always inquired into and considered proposals with absolute impartiality and objectivity. The fact, however, remains that the Board was (totally unjustly, of course) blamed for having judged its own proposals, and that the issue was consequently prejudged. This amendment will relieve the Board from this unjust accusation. I may add, Sir, that this amendment was decided upon after the Board had unanimously expressed its concurrence therewith.

The second is an amendment to Section 16 (6), which is contained in Clause 12 (b) of the Bill. Section 16 of the Act requires the Minister, on written application being made to him, to determine in certain circumstances the group by a member of which a building, land or premises shall be deemed to have been occupied on the specified date, which is the date upon which the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 relating to the occupation of land or premises become applicable in a portion of the controlled area. The present Section 16 (6) provides that the Minister may postpone the making of a determination for such period as he may deem fit, and according to legal advice he is not in a position again to postpone this decision. It is, however, often necessary to postpone the making of a determination more than once, since the future of a particular area may, after the expiration of the first period of postponement (which period is in any event based on speculation) still not be clear enough, and a wrong determination may jeopardize the future of the area. Provision is therefore now made for the postponement of a determination from time to time.

The third is the proposal in Clause 15 (a) of the Bill which now enables the Minister to issue a permit authorizing the occupation of land or premises subject to a condition that the person to whom such permit is issued shall on or before the date from which he commences to occupy such land or premises, vacate any other land or premises mentioned in the permit. This amendment is necessary to provide machinery to ensure that disqualified persons who, by permits issued to them on the application, are authorized to gain occupational rights in an area where such occupation conforms to the requirements of the Department, can be obliged to surrender the occupational rights in another area where their presence runs counter to the planning contemplated in pursuance of the general policy. What I have in mind here is primarily business premises. As I have already said earlier in my speech, these amendments have become necessary to bring the Act into line with administrative requirements and to abolish unnecessary control measures. A number of these amendments are of a technical nature and will be dealt with during the Committee Stage. I shall therefore deal now only with the more important ones.

Firstly, the amendments contained in Clause 29 (c) and Clause 45 (a) are introduced in consequence of an undertaking which I gave last year during the Committee Stage of the Group Areas Amendment Bill. I indicated that I would consider the question of the granting of relief to persons who may be detrimentally affected in consequence of the proclamation of premises under Section 16bis of the Group Areas Act. This section provides for the proclamation of premises for use or occupation for a particular purpose such as business only, and once such proclamation has been issued, the use of premises defined therein for any other purpose is prohibited. Such a step may sometimes have an adverse effect on the interests of the owner of a building who might have used it for business as well as residential purposes. Provision is therefore now made that “affected property” shall also include property specified in a proclamation issued under Section 16bis of the Group Areas Act and which is on the date of such proclamation used or occupied for a purpose other than the particular purpose specified in the proclamation. It is, however, provided that such property shall not be dealt with as affected property unless the owner applies that it shall so be dealt with within two months after the date upon which it becomes necessary to compile a list, or within such further period as the Minister may allow. The treatment of the property as affected property opens the door for relief to owners of such property under the ordinary machinery of Group Areas Legislation.

The following amendment to the Development Act which I wish to raise is the amendment contained in paragraph (f) of Clause 29 which expands the definition of owner to include a deputy-sheriff, messenger of the court, trustees, executor, liquidator, curator, administrator or other person lawfully entitled or required to dispose of property for the purposes of Sections 15 (4), 18, 19, 23 to 28 and 31 of the Group Areas Development Act also, whereas the expansion of this definition is limited under existing provisions to Section 20 only. The sections referred to deal with amendments to lists of affected properties, alterations to buildings after the basic date, procedure in connection with the determination of basic values, procedure relating to the deletion of affected properties from the list, acquisition of properties by the board and arbitration proceedings. It is obvious that the definition of “owner” should include a reference to the persons whom I have mentioned for all these purposes.

Mr. Speaker, the following important amendment proposed to the Group Areas Development Act is the one contained in paragraph (h) of Clause 29 which deals with the inclusion of properties in the list of affected properties. In accordance with the existing provisions of the Act, a property is an affected property if it is owned and occupied by members of the disqualified group. The fact that a property must automatically be dealt with as affected by virtue of its being occupied by a member or members of the disqualified group, has placed a heavy burden on the Department and has also inconvenienced members of the public.

It is accordingly proposed that property which is affected property by reason only of occupation thereof by a disqualified person at the commencement of the proposed legislation, shall not be dealt with as affected property if the owner thereof requests the Board within two months from the date of the commencement of the amending legislation or within such further period as the Minister may in his discretion allow that it be not so dealt with and that property which for that reason becomes affected property after the commencement of the amending legislation shall not be dealt with as such, unless the owner thereof requests that it be so dealt with. In other words, affected property now on the list by reason of occupation only, may be removed from such list on the application of the owner and an affected property which becomes such by reason of occupation only after the commencement of the amending legislation, may be deal with as such only on the specific request of the owner.

Similar provisions are proposed in respect of properties which become affected by reason of their being used for a purpose other than the purpose specified in a proclamation under Section 16bis of the Group Areas Act No. 77 of 1957.

Clauses 30 to 37 provide for the alteration of the constitution of the Group Areas Development Board and for matters incidental thereto. Amendments necessitated by the establishment of the Department are also included in some of these clauses. It is proposed that the Board shall consist of not more than seven members appointed by the State President and that one of these members shall be designated chairman and one as the vicechairman. The present provision requiring the appointment of alternate members is unncessary and there is no justification for the retention of the procedure in connection with the appointment of nominees of the Ministers of Finance, Bantu Administration and Development, Lands and Housing. Representatives of these Departments (usually the Heads of the Departments) are always welcome to attend meetings of the Board as observers for their Departments. I have in fact been assured that they will be invited to Board meetings whenever the interests of their Departments may be involved. I may add, Mr. Speaker, that the proposal emanated from the Treasury, which pointed out that in the light of the new set-up the present method of constitution of the Board had become unnecessary. I may also point out that the object sought to be achieved by the stipulation that several Departments should be represented on the Board could easily be reached by means of the administrative machinery to which I have referred. The repeal of Section 3 (2) renders the retention of the provision enabling the appointment of alternate members (Section 3 (3)) unnecessary since members of the Board who are not also saddled with the duty of being the head of a department need not have the assistance of an alternate member. An enabling provision for reappointment of present members of the Board, where desired, is contained in Clause 30 (2) of the Bill. The other provisions relating to the constitution of the Board, the appointment of standing committees by the Minister and ad hoc committees by the chairman of the Board are self-explanatory and need not be enlarged upon.

The establishment of a Group Areas Development Fund is dealt with in Clause 38 of the Bill and I need comment no further on that except to state that the proposed Section 10ter provides for the transfer, without the cumbersome and expensive procedure of registration, of the deeds of immovable property of the Board to the National Housing Commission, to which all matters in connection with the building of houses has been entrusted. This transfer can in terms of the proposal contained in the clause be effected by a mere endorsement in favour of the said Commission.

I also wish to say a few words on Clause 39 (d). In this clause it is now provided that the Board may in certain circumstances make or grant ex gratia payments, refunds, donations and remissions not exceeding R1,000. The making of such ex gratia payments is, however, subject to the approval of the Minister given in consultation with the Minister of Finance and subject to such conditions as the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance may determine. The making of such payments must, moreover, be reported to Parliament by the Controller and Auditor-General. Payments under this provision which exceed R1,000 can only be made after approval by resolution of the House of Assembly and the Senate. Experience has taught us that cases of hardship have arisen where the ordinary machinery for relief provided in the Act is insufficient and in one case it was necessary to provide for relief in a Finance Bill. The acceptance of this proposal will be in the interest of the public and I therefore hope that it will receive the support of all hon. members.

Provision is further made that the Board may, by agreement with the owner of land not belonging to the Board, develop such land —Clause 39 (f). This is proposed to enable the Board to assist, wherever possible and expedient, in the rapid development of areas.

As far as Clause 42 is concerned, I may point out that a city council which has accepted delegated powers under the Group Areas Development Act, has found that it is not legally entitled to use its general funds for the development of an area which could not under existing legislation be incorporated in its area since it was not adjacent thereto. The amendment now proposed will give such a local authority and others which may experience similar difficulties the power to treat such an area as part of its area of jurisdiction for the purpose of exercising delegated powers. I may mention that the Provincial Administrations have been consulted on this amendment and that they have offered no objection thereto.

The deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Group Areas Development Act is proposed in Clause 45 (c) since it has been found that misuse of the lists of affected properties which must be open to public inspection is being made by certain persons in furtherance of their own interest. Existing legislation already provides that notice should be given to all owners of the fact that their properties are included in these lists and also of the basic values of such properties. The provision that the list of affected properties shall be open to public inspection is therefore not only unnecessary but also undesirable and has, moreover, led to malpractices.

No provision exists for the valuation of improvements, excluding buildings which are made after the basic date or are being made on that date on land which is affected property. For this reason it is proposed in Clause 47 (a) that where improvements, other than improvements consisting of the erection, alteration or extension of buildings are made after the basic date or at that date are being made on land which is affected property, the basic value of the land may on the application of the owner be redetermined, subject to the condition, however, that the improvements were made or are being made with the approval of the Board. Such redetermined value shall then be substituted for the basic value already determined and shall be the basic value of the land in question. A similar provision for the redetermination of the basic value of an affected property which is increased or decreased in consequence of a zoning or rezoning under any law relating to town planning, is also embodied in this clause and in Clause 47 (d). In Clause 47 (b) the Board is given a discretion to have the value of the improvements to which I have referred determined or redetermined as the case may be. It is clear that this clause is intended to do justice to the owners of affected properties. Clause 47 (c) deals firstly with the procedure to be followed in the determination of the basic value of property where a building or improvements are destroyed after the basic date but before the determination of the basic value and secondly for the determination in the discretion of the Board of the basic value of an affected property where it appears that such property is burdened with an encumbrance of which the valuators were unaware at the date of the determination of the basic value.

Mr. Speaker, the following point which merits explanation is the amendment proposed in Clause 49 (d) of the Bill. The proposed proviso to Section 20 (6) (a) of the Act is added to give the Board a discretion to exclude from the consideration any amounts paid to the seller as compensation for fruitless expenditure which he has incurred on the land, for example, where he is forced under threat of expropriation to sell to a local authority. Such expenses may be survey costs, costs of building plans, etc. This may have the effect that if the Board elects to discard any such stated fruitless expenditure, the owner will for the purpose of determining the consideration of the property be liable for payment of a smaller amount in respect of appreciation contribution should such consideration be in excess of the basic value. A larger amount will similarly be payable by the Board in respect of depreciation contribution should the basic value be less than the amount of such consideration.

Mr. Speaker, it has been experienced that some local authorities are inclined to expropriate at far below market value, relying on the Board to compensate the owners by way of depreciation contributions at the rate of 80 per cent of the difference between the basic value and the expropriation value. It is now provided that whenever the compensation fixed for expropriated property which is affected property is less than the basic value and is in the opinion of the Board also lower than the market value thereof, the market value shall be determined either by agreement between the owner and the Board or in the absence of such agreement, by arbitration. If the market value so determined exceeds the compensation fixed, such market value shall for the purpose of determining the depreciation contribution payable, be regarded as the compensation fixed—in other words the depreciation contribution payable by the Board shall be payable on the difference between the market value of the property and the basic value. This will have the effect of compelling local authorities to compensate persons adequately on expropriation and not to leave it to the Board to do so by way of depreciation contributions.

I have now dealt with a large percentage of the proposed amendments. The ones to which I have not referred fall into three main categories, namely amendments which are necessitated by the establishment of the Republic (Clauses 1 (e), 9, 10, 11, 12 (a), 13, 14, 17 (a), 18, 19, 20, 23, 27 (a), 27 (c), 31, 39 (g), 40, 41, 44, 52 and 57); those which emanated from decimilization (Clauses 15 (b), 21, 26 (c), 26 (d), 27 (d), 36 (d), 55 and 56); and a few others which are not of such great importance and which can more effectively be discussed during the Committee Stage of the Bill.

In conclusion I wish to refer to the complaint (which has almost become a parrot cry) that group areas legislation is amended too often. In this connection I must point out that the said legislation deals with changing and developing issues in which the activities of almost every member of our community must at some time or other become involved. I therefore once again wish to make it quite clear that I adhere to the point of view that I took up last year, that I will not hesitate to come with proposals for amendments to this very necessary and important legislation as and when my duty so dictates. There is growing support for this policy amongst all racial groups in the Republic. I have no doubt that we shall shortly succeed in bringing about with this measure self-respecting communities living in racial harmony and goodwill.

I would like to say firstly that we have listened with very great interest to what the hon. the Minister has said and, I think, Sir, that you will agree with me, having listened to this speech which lasted nearly an hour and a half, that this Bill which was laid before us on Thursday—the White Paper that afternoon—has really put a tremendous strain on this side of the House to study it, to follow it and to be able to appreciate it to the extent of taking part in a second reading debate here on Tuesday afternoon. I want again, as I have done before, to lodge a protest against the inadequate time that is given to this side of the House for the proper study of Bills of this magnitude and of this importance, on the Minister’s own showing. I know that the hon. the Minister has attempted with his last few remarks to ward off the criticism—he said so—that he comes here year after year with amendments to the Group Areas Act. He says it has become a parrot cry. Sir, it is not a parrot cry, and the Minister is wrong when he says that the parrot cry is that he comes with amending legislation. He has to come with amending legislation; that is the point. He must come with it because the legislation falls down year after year to cope with the situation for which it was designed. The Minister does not bring this legislation now because he is a clever Minister who thinks that he has now created a completely new situation in South Africa in respect of which new legislation is necessary. He is coping with a situation that was here when he took over, when he was a Deputy Minister and when he started introducing Bills to amend the Group Areas Act. He has no alternative but to come with this legislation, and may I say that from that particular point of view this Bill to-day, of course, makes the most far-reaching changes in past legislation. It is not only just a change in the provisions of the Act here and there of a more or less important character. Sir, I must again lodge our protest from this side of the House at the limited time given for the consideration of this Bill. I want to say too that the White Paper has been of very little assistance to us, and I am saying in all seriousness—and I put this to the Minister—that (I am not talking about the odd points here and there) if we could have had virtually his speech which has covered the Bill almost clause by clause, and a White Paper for our guidance, and if we could have had a week to study that speech which the hon. the Minister has made here this afternoon, it could only have redounded to the credit of Parliament and to the level of the debate which must follow when Parliament discusses this Bill, the second reading of which the Minister has moved this afternoon. That information which he has given us this afternoon was what we sought, and we certainly did not get it from the White Paper.

You cannot expect me to publish my speech beforehand.

The Minister says we cannot expect him to publish his speech beforehand, but is there a catch in it? Is the Minister trying to trip up this side of the House? Why cannot he publish his speech beforehand? I was going to make a request to him: he is making me a little bashful. I was going to ask him whether he would not publish his speech now on the amendment that he is going to move next year, in 1963, so that we can study it. We know, of course, that next year there will be another amendment to this Act, and it would be so helpful if he would only publish his speech now dealing with the amendment that he is going to introduce in 1963. Sir, there is no catch in it; the Minister is not trying to trip us up; he is not trying to leave Parliament in darkness until the moment when he suddenly pulls the curtain aside and shows us the full ray of sunshine, the glare of publicity on the proposals he is putting before Parliament. I am sure nobody more than the hon. the Minister wants his proposals to be understood by Parliament and, Sir, as has been pointed out before, this is an extremely involved measure. I say this subject to correction, but I think this is the tenth or eleventh amendment to the Group Areas Act. We have had an amending Bill year after year. On occasion we have had two amending Bills in one year, and we have to grapple with them to the best of our ability. I hope that at any rate as far as the Minister is concerned he will not press for the next stage to be taken in too much of a hurry; that he will give us a chance to study his speech from his Hansard in relation to the next stage of the Bill so that we can deal with it clause by clause in the Committee Stage in the light of the information he has given us this afternoon.

For the purpose of what I want to say I will read out an amendment which I now move, because I want to speak against the background of this amendment. I move—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House declines to pass the Second Reading of the Group Areas Amendment Bill because, inter alia—

1. (a) it will not eliminate the injustices, hardships and losses suffered by members of all races;
2. (b) it creates a sense of insecurity and uncertainty in the mind of the citizen as to the law and his rights under the law; and
3. (c) it allows the Minister unwarranted powers to interfere with provincial councils and local authorities”.

In regard to this question of uncertainty, I do not think I have to proceed very far. The Minister himself made that point this afternoon as to the uncertainty that had arisen in regard to the work of the Group Areas Board and in the exercise of its various functions. Sir, what are the Minister’s proposals? I wonder if we can just take our minds back a few years to the Minister of Interior who was then the Minister who introduced the Bill, the present Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister at that time was going to take over this matter of group areas himself. There was to be a board for certain purposes but he was going to deal with this himself. Certain amendments were then made to that measure, and those amendments gave more and more power to the Group Areas Board. Time went on until now we have gone full circle and for all practical purposes the Minister now takes back to himself and his Department the powers which in the past had been conferred upon the board. Those powers are now taken away from the board and given back to the Minister himself, to the secretary of his Department, to his staff and a group of unspecified people who may not be civil servants; they are not members or officials of the board; they are people whom the Minister can call in for the purpose of helping him. I want to say at once that we forecast from this side of the House without any doubt whatever that the Minister cannot do the job—not because of his incapacity, not because he is ineffective or incapable of doing hard work—I am sure he cannot work too hard to satisfy me—but simply because the job is beyond the capacity of a Minister to handle in this fashion. Again I make the point that we have complained about the power to make regulations for the control of various aspects of the law in its application to the ordinary citizen. We make that point in our amendment. The ordinary citizen cannot deal with the situation. He reads the law, he goes to counsel and pays the fee, and then the next week the Minister issues a fresh set of regulations dealing with all those matters and nullifies the whole of the legal position occupied by a member of the public who seeks to find out what is the law. Sir, he is entitled to find out what is the law. If indeed we are seeking to make a simple law, easily understood by the ordinary citizen of our country, then believe me we are failing in so far as this particular legislation is concerned, because a more difficult and a more intricate law to understand in all its ramifications, it would be very hard indeed to find. And, as I say, it can be changed by means of regulations which have the force of law, and even in respect of one of the fundamental principles upon which the administration of the law was based, the Group Areas Board, the Minister now comes along with a Bill to take away the powers of the board, holus bolus for all practical purposes, and takes them unto himself.

Sir, you know that we have never liked this Act. We do not like this particular chapter in the Bill; we don’t like these provisions. We think that some of the provisions of this Bill bear extremely heavily on various classes of people, and we will deal with this in the Committee Stage. But I want to come now to a particularly important matter from the point of view of the Opposition, and that is this question of the municipalities in their relation to the administration of the Act, the principles in the Act, the particulars and the detail set out in the Bill here. The hon. the Minister will forgive me for saying that I do not think that he was quite frank with the House this afternoon when it comes to the question of consultation with the various folks concerned. I want to put a question to the Minister who said that he had consulted with certain members of the municipal associations, that he had dealt with the provinces, and that he had dealt with such and such folk. Sir, will the Minister please be frank? Was a copy of this Bill submitted to the municipalities and the Provincial Administrations.

A copy of the Bill was submitted to the Provincial Administrations.

Sir, I asked the Minister whether a copy of the Bill was submitted to the municipalities, either through the United Municipal Executive or some other body, and to the Provincial Administrations, and the Minister says that a copy was submitted to the Provincial Administrations. Obviously the answer then is that it was not submitted to the representatives of the municipalities of South Africa.

The Committee met them from time to time and discussed everything with them.

No, that was not the question. The question was whether a copy of the Bill was submitted to the representatives of the municipalities.

I will reply to you.

You see, Sir, the answer is that it was not. You see, Mr. Speaker, I said just now that I thought the Minister was less than frank with the House, and I said that I hoped that he was not going to leave us in darkness up to the point where he was suddenly going to throw the sunlight of publicity on what had taken place. I think we are entitled to ask this in all fairness. It does not reflect anything at all on the Minister if he says “No, I did not consult, so far as the Bill itself is concerned, I did not consult and I did not submit the Bill to the representatives of the municipalities, but I did submit the Bill to the representatives of the provinces”. You see, to take portions out of a Bill and to sit down round a table with representatives of municipalities and to discuss just that point, in vacuo, in an entirely objective manner, unrelated to the rest of the Bill, that is not a discussion of the Bill. That is why we here in this House first deal with the Bill at the second reading where the broad principles are discussed, and then we deal with it clause by clause. But we have the whole Bill in front of us and we have the explanation of the hon. the Minister. That is the way we deal with a measure. But the Minister cannot claim that he has consulted the municipalities through their elected representatives, or their appointed representatives if he has not come with the full Bill in the form in which it has reached us and that they have been given the opportunity therefore of viewing the whole picture. The hon. the Minister says that he has consulted the Provincial Administrations in that form, that the Bill in this form was submitted to the Provincial Administrations. May I challenge the hon. the Minister on that point and ask him whether the Bill in the form in which it is now before us at the second reading was submitted to the four Provincial Administrations for their comment and whether they were indeed consulted on it? In other words, was there reasonable consultation prior to the Bill reaching this final form? Were they given an opportunity for their opinions being voiced in a manner which would permit of some amendment if it was felt reasonable and desirable, amendments to the Bill in its original form? Is this Bill now the result of consultation with the provinces, the Provincial Administrations? Were they able to see the Bill in advance and to influence its final form? I want to say quite frankly that this Bill cannot be taken as having the approval of the municipalities of South Africa, or of the Provincial Administrations. This is a Bill that has come from the Minister. It cannot under any circumstances claim to be carrying the approval in the way that it is a Bill which has been approved of specifically in this form by the Provincial Administrations and/or the representatives of the municipalities. And why not? Sir, we have listened for nearly an hour and a half to the hon. the Minister dealing with point after point affecting the municipalities of South Africa, affecting the position of the ratepayers in those municipalities, dealing with the cost and the burdens which they will have to carry, and, Sir, they have not been given an opportunity of expressing their point of view in regard to the Bill as is before us. I think it is wrong, absolutely wrong, and I say that the haste which we have experienced now between Thursday last week and to-day is a haste that is unjustified bearing in mind that people who are so vitally interested as the municipalities have not been given an opportunity to get a copy of the Bill, consider it and let us in Parliament here assembled have the opportunity of hearing their point of view expressed here in this forum.

Is that the only reason why you are opposing the Bill?

I hope the hon. member will be as patient with me as we tried to be with the Minister and just listen and he will hear my reasons for objecting to the Bill. If he can understand my language, he will be able to appreciate my objections as I go on. The position then is that the Minister’s proposals in this Bill are unconventional, they are not unprecedented, but they are unconventional. The hon. the Minister in a previous enactment, now to be repealed, provided for the setting up of governing bodies in regard to areas which he is creating and what one might call “uniracial areas”, areas mainly of one race, ultimately to be areas in which only one race will live, all qualified people. And what I am saying now applies, as the Minister’s remarks did, to the racial groups other than the White groups. The hon. the Minister is working to a plan to have the Coloured people in their areas, the Asiatics in their areas, and presumably the Bantu in their areas also, separate and distinct and apart from the White group living in its area. He paints a picture of these non-European areas starting with a low (of small import) form of local government, gradually rising in the scale until eventually possibly the highest form of local government can be attained. The highest form of local government in terms of the existing statutes dealing with local government. Now it is quite clear that the previous statute, where governing bodies were to be established and where they were going to be established by regulation put the Minister in this position that sooner or later he and his advisers came up against the hard, unyielding fact that to be able to establish that kind of local government, they have to virtually copy the local government ordinances of the various provinces. There is no other way of framing regulations to deal with it, unless it was to be a creature unknown in local government in South Africa. If it was to follow anything like the orthodox pattern, then the only way to reach that particular body, that governing body, was to follow the local government ordinances in the four provinces. Now the hon. the Minister has repealed that section and he comes now with a proposal to establish in the first instance what is really a talking shop, an advisory committee, to be created by regulation. The method of selecting or appointing the members of that committee, what they are to do, their functions, their procedure, everything is at the mercy of the Minister and his regulations. But it is advisory, and then from there it goes on and it becomes a management committee. It goes up a step now and, as the name implies, a management committee will have certain functions now other than just talking and giving advice to somebody else. It can deal with the Minister and with the local authority in which it is created or to which it is contiguous, and under certain circumstances the local authority cannot act without first dealing with them within a time limit. So the committee now starts to gain a certain amount of experience and gets a certain measure of authority. Thereafter, the Minister can go to the Administrator in any of the provinces concerned and instruct him to establish a local authority, and now an orthodox local authority, in terms of legislation, well known and understood, because it is already on the Statute Book, in other words, in terms of the local government ordinance of the province concerned. The local government ordinances of the four provinces are not identical, they are not the same, the terminology used is not the same in regard to the various types of local authorities, but in so far as the particular type of local authority required by the Minister is concerned, he can order the Administrator of the province to create a local authority of that type, of that stature, that kind, and the Administrator must do it. He must do it within a time limit, and he must do it in terms of the laws in his own province. And then on top of that, the hon. the Minister says that he does not unnecessarily want to enter into the sphere of municipal government. Mr. Speaker, I just wonder how much further you can go into the sphere of municipal government than taking the power to say to the Administrator of any province, “ I order you to institute a town council, or a town board, or a village management board, or a health committee, and I give you six months in which to do it, and it shall be of such and such a character—it shall be a town board, or a health committee ”, or whatever it may be. And the Administrator has got to it! Is there any wider power conceivable? I venture to suggest that is the gamut, the whole lot, there is no other power. The Minister now has taken powers in regard to municipal institutions in South Africa to determine for himself in regard to the non-Europeans, the three main non-European races (the Asiatics, the Coloureds and the Bantu) just what form of local government they shall have, just where they shall have it and the conditions under which they are to obtain it. And he goes further and he deals with their franchise rights in that regard, and he deals with their franchise rights on this basis: They are living in that area, there are their interests, and they should have the franchise right. I wonder if the Minister just in his own mind will take the logic of that argument a bit further into the wider domain of the Republic of South Africa and see where it gets him. Is it a good argument in regard to an area that the people there shall have the right of franchise in that area, in regard to their particular matters there, but that it shall extend no further than that, and that in the wider sphere of their interests and their wellbeing that shall not apply? It would not be right for me to pursue that further at the present time.

Sir, this is a curious development coming from an hon. Minister on the Government side. I am willing to show him a document issued at the time of the last provincial election in Natal by the present Administrator, who is a Nationalist. He issued a document which he had printed and distributed in thousands so as to sway the election, dealing with the question of municipal franchise being conferred upon Indians in Natal. What is the hon. the Minister doing now? He is giving them that municipal franchise.

Tell us, are you opposed to giving them the municipal franchise or do you want to give them the franchise?

I will answer your question at the right time. The hon. the Minister said that there is no non-White municipal franchise, except in the Cape. He was wrong. The Minister must study his brief a bit better. Not only is there a non-European franchise, but there is an Indian who is a member of the Town Board of Stanger in Natal. Did the Minister not know that?

Yes.

Yes, he knows it now.

Tell us how many Indians have the franchise in Natal?

The point the hon. the Minister wants to make is that it is like the nursemaid’s baby—it is a very small baby and so easy to forgive the nursemaid. It is a very small number and it is so easy to forgive Natal! I am dealing with a matter of principle and a categoric statement made here by the hon. the Minister, and his categoric statement was that there is no non-European municipal franchise except in the Cape. That does not permit of stretching or changing. The Minister is wrong. And who elects that non-European in Stranger? The Europeans elect him, because it is impossible for him to get the number of votes by which he is elected from time to time on the number of non-Europeans registered on that roll. The only possibility for him to get in is that he must get White votes. And for years and years, certainly 16 years to my knowledge, that position has obtained. So I want to point out that this thing does not run just in straight lines, it does not follow normal orthodox formal lines. Sir, these municipalities are to be established on the order of the Minister. Where do they go? I want to ask the hon. the Minister when we come to the Committee Stage what their position is going to be. He is starting with an advisory committee, a talking shop; he goes on to a management committee where the first real powers are conferred; then he wants the Administrator to create an orthodox local authority in terms of the local government ordinance. Does the hon. the Minister anticipate and visualize the rising in status of those local authorities created for the Asiatics and Coloured people, until they reach the status of what in Natal you would call a full town council, a borough? I don’t know what the equivalent in the Cape is.

A municipality.

Yes, that is the terminology used in the local government ordinances, I think, but in any case the highest form of local authority. Because if that is so, we must have it quite clear from the hon. the Minister that is the intention that these local authorities, created in the areas where non-Europeans are the sole inhabitants, shall go on until they reach the same level, the highest level of White local government, whether it is in a municipality like Cape Town or some other municipality, because that is only a matter of degree. Is that where he sees this matter going? And if that is so, what is the relationship then between those non-White municipalities and the White municipalities contiguous to them and adjoining them? I want to make this point for the following reason: We have had in the history of South Africa, in the Transvaal and Johannesburg, and we have had it in Natal, the experience that we find ourselves subject to growth. We are all growing, and an area set aside contiguous to a White town will grow. It has happened in Natal and has. happened in the Transvaal. An area is set aside for non-Europeans. Like tends to go to like. That area begins itself to grow, but the growth of the White town goes on and grows over and enfolds that area. That has happened and we all know it. That area now with its own town council, its own city council (whatever it may be), what is its position vis-à-vis the White town that is enfolding it? Or will the hon. the Minister view the opposite and that is that the Coloured township or the Asiatic township because of the higher rate of birth and so forth, will grow and enfold the White township, spill over a portion of the White township? What is the relationship here? Who gives way to who when the time comes? I was on a commission appointed by a late Administrator in Natal, the late Mr. Heaton Nicholls, many years ago, and in the commission we coined a phrase and I have used it many times since, and I think it is fundamental to this issue. We said in regard to this question of municipality touching municipality and area touching area, group touching group: That the point of contact was the point of friction. Where once an area has been surrounded, then the point of friction increases. That is not only a possibility, but something that is inevitable if our country is to grow as we hope it will grow. The population of the day is a passing phase. We hope that the population will increase tremendously. But all races will increase, and this friction being built up between the one race and the other is something that we have got to anticipate; we have got to realize that it is likely to happen. What is the hon. Minister’s decision then in regard to who gives way to who? Or is the one area simply being left to be enfolded by the other racial group?

I want to deal for a moment with the question of the local authorities envisaged by the Minister. I have said that we see our town, our villages as human institutions that are continually growing and expanding. They don’t stand still, because then they shrink. Under the provisions of this Bill certain duties can be placed on contiguous local authorities, and areas can be excised which are carrying services provided already by a local authority, such as for example water, light, sewage, streets and so forth. What is the position of the local authority which has provided at the cost of its ratepayers those services in an area in which the Minister now proposes to establish a local authority for another race group? Is provision to be made for them to be paid out, to be compensated where a local authority is placed in the position of having paid for the development of an area and then finds that another race group is to be established there? The hon. the Minister referred to an investigation into the industrial and commercial development of the various racial groups. One of the things of course that worries us about the whole of the concept as set out in this Bill, a concept where the Minister believes that he can take members of different race groups in their hundreds and their thousands and move them into big centralized areas, big groups in their own areas, is this. He wants to call such a group a town. In a sense that may be called a town in that they have their housing there …

Where do you get that? You are just making vague statements.

When we come to the Committee Stage, I hope to show the hon. the Minister that the concept is not foreign to this Bill, it is not foreign to the concept of the original Act which I cannot deal with here. But seeing that the hon. the Minister raises that point I want to ask: What are group areas? What is a Group Areas Development Board? Is the Group Areas Development Board not there for the precise purpose of providing the amenities in a group area where he proposes to put people of one group, separate and independent and distinct from the members of other racial groups, where people who are not of that group, who are disqualified persons, will be removed? What are disqualified persons? They are persons of other racial groups who are living in an area where only qualified persons can live because of their race. What does Clause 21 of this Bill mean if that is not the Minister’s intention? Of course it is the Minister’s intention.

But I come back to this question of towns. The hon. the Minister has said that he is having an investigation of the industrial and commercial possibilities of these areas where you will have these separate racial groups. In other words, he has himself seen that you cannot have a big area in which there are nothing but residences, for Coloured people or Asiatics or Bantu. He has seen that there must be something else there. He creates a local authority to control that area, but where is it going to get its rates from to run the services, even if the services have been provided by a contiguous White authority? Where will they get their rates from? Only from the residential properties in such an area? No, the hon. the Minister realizes that is impossible and now he is having an enquiry to see whether industrial development is possible, whether commercial development is possible in such an area. That brings me again to this particular point: What are his proposals in regard to that particular matter? You see, this is one of these most intricate things. The Minister is taking the power to order an Administrator to create a local authority, a form of local government. But, Sir, that has nothing whatever to do with town planning. He has got certain powers so far as the Development board is concerned under which town planning can take place. But there is still one power that the hon. the Minister cannot control, and that is the power of the man with capital to invest it in an area where he wants to invest it. The Minister cannot tell him to go and invest his capital in a Coloured township or an Asiatic township if he does not want to invest it there because he thinks the chances of profit are not good enough there. There is a fundamental issue that I want to put to the Minister in regard to this Bill: Is he creating the empty semblance of local government for these people with nothing substantial underneath at all? Is it to be a dormitory town that he is creating with the people sleeping in these towns, whether they are Asiatics or Coloureds or Bantu, going out in the morning to the neighbouring European areas to work in the factories of the White man, in the White man’s place of business? Is that in fact what the Minister is visualizing? If the Minister is visualizing factories, big commercial houses, and so forth being established in these areas being set aside for non-Europeans, how does he propose to bring that about? I hope he will explain to us where the capital is to come from and what the chances are of success. Because it is the profit motive that will guide the entrepreneur and the investor. But if on the other hand he is visualizing these townships as being dormitory towns in which the people are to be segregated at night-time while they sleep, and where they have their own town council, then let us have the picture clearly before us. Because as the Bill is at present, and with all that the Minister has said, I visualize a development of nothing more than dormitory towns in which the people who will be employed in the neighbouring White towns will simply spend their nights, and from which they will come forth during the hours in which they have to work. Does the hon. the Minister honestly believe that is the sort of thing that is going to have a degree of permanence, that it is going to meet the desires and wishes of these folks? I am sorry, but it seems to us that the whole of the foundations are being based on sand, and the sand is the inability of the Minister to come with a clear-cut Bill precisely setting out the law in regard to the individual, his rights under the Act, so that he shall know precisely where he stands, irrespective of his colour. Is the Minister going to allow the ordinary organic growth of our towns to take place and the development of our cities and towns, our commerce and industry, without an attempt to artificially create the barriers that the Minister will be creating by this Bill? The Minister may laugh, but the days will be short before we have the same Minister back in this Parliament again in 1963, coming here to tell us that he comes now to meet the changing circumstances with another amending Bill. The Minister is taking powers to run this whole department of his by regulations which he and his officials are going to frame, regulations which are not going to be submitted to public bodies, giving them an opportunity to debate what is going to be done. And they will be regulations which will have the force of law.

You did not read the Bill.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will read his own Hansard and go back about ten minutes before he ended and read the enumeration of all those matters in respect of which he is going to make regulations. I have not covered half of them yet and I do not propose to cover the rest. I make a sweeping statement and say that the Minister has decided that he does not want to pin himself down by putting on the Statute Book the law on the subject; he proposes to put generalities on the Statute Book, a generality which says that the Minister shall have the power to make regulations, or the State President. And may I pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and say that I do not know what he hopes for the future. He is a young man, but for the moment I look upon him as being the alter ego of the State President in this matter. I cannot see the State President refusing a really serious request for the issue of proclamations or regulations coming from the Minister or the Cabinet. I take it that is so. So the Minister has got complete control of the situation. We think it is absolutely wrong in matters that are affecting the homes and the land and the title deeds of people, of ordinary common folks, that they should not have a law clearly and adequately setting out their rights under the law, rights in respect of which they can go to the law courts to have them enforced. Regulations are deceptive, they are quicksand, because as I pointed out, they may be changed by the Minister to meet shifting circumstances and changing circumstances. This Government has been in the habit when they lose a court case and they find there are difficulties in regard to the Judiciary’s interpretation of a law, to come with amending legislation to put right the loophole that has been found and which has resulted in a decision being given against him. The Minister can change the regulations even without having to go to court or having to come to Parliament. He takes the right to make regulations and to change them. I repeat that in matters of this kind where the homes and happiness of people are concerned, we think it is fundamentally wrong to create such a position, and for that reason I move the amendment I have read out.

I second the amendment.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has not discussed the proposals contained in this legislation. He has gone out of his way to meet trouble half-way. But, Sir, it is very noticeable that as soon as racial affairs are discussed in this House, the Opposition comes to life again. In the no-confidence debate the Opposition could not get into its stride because the hon. the Prime Minister had taken the wind out of their sails with the Transkeian proposal. But this legislation has once again put life into the Opposition, because here we are discussing racial affairs, and they thus have an opportunity of beating the race drum. The hon. member for South Coast seldom approaches this race issue in South Africa with reality. He usually does so with great emotion and in his emotional state he then charges forward like a bull at a red cloak. But in his speech to-day the hon. member overlooked the sword behind the cloak. The sword behind the cloak is in fact his own province, where the non-Whites have no vote in local affairs. There was a time in our history when the Indians had the municipal franchise but they were deprived of it as far back as 1895, and the hon. member over there, who was an Administrator of Natal, did absolutely nothing to restore the franchise to them.

Shame.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a prophecy here and that is that hon. members on the other side who represent the Coloured voters are going to follow the United Party’s example in this debate which concerns the group areas. They are not going to allow themselves to be led by the realities of the situation; they too are going to allow themselves to be led by emotion …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, one knows that when one speaks the truth one is hated. The hon. member reacts immediately.

Prima facie you should be supporting this side.

Mr. Speaker, the Group Areas Act in my opinion embodies what can be called the South African way of life. The American talks of the “ American way of life ”: the Englishman talks of “ a British way of life ”, but to me this legislation is descriptive of the South African way of life, the basis of peaceful co-existence between the four racial groups in South Africa. Hon. members on the other side, and particularly the hon. member for South Coast must not talk. Natal got its group areas as far back as 1946 with the introduction of the Pegging Act under United Party rule. But he begrudges others—the Cape Province, the Transvaal and others—what he demanded for himself—and at a time when the hon. member was the Administrator of Natal.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit me to mention just four of the principal Act’s features from which the amendments in this Bill flow. The first is the establishment of separate residential areas for the four different racial groups. This has already been implemented to a large extent. A second feature is that there shall be no discrimination between the racial groups; in this Act all groups are treated on an equal basis. There are many laws in South Africa which discriminate on the ground of race and colour. But this is one of the laws which does not discriminate on those grounds. This Act places all races in South Africa on an equal footing, and all races are treated equally. Each race makes sacrifices for the welfare of the community as a whole. Thirdly, the principal Act made provision for training in democratic government in the various areas. I refer to Clause 25 of the consolidated Act. The fourth feature is the principle that was laid down in the •original Group Areas Act, and that is that the transition must take place gradually, with the least possible dislocation. These amendments now give effect to what was laid down in the principal Act of 1950. It is nothing strange that the United Party is opposing these amendments. They are no longer putting up the strenuous opposition that they put up in the past when we even had night sittings when amendments to the Group Areas Act came before this House. The fact is that they always opposed it. And this is not the first time that the hon. member for South Coast has taken the lead in a discussion on the Group Areas Act.

I want to deal with two aspects of these amendments, namely the reorganization which is taking place as a result of the establishment of the Department and the establishment of local government for non-Whites, more particularly with reference to the Coloureds in the Cape Province. This reorganization is based on experience. The hon. member for South Coast strenuously objects to amendments; he says that too many amendments are being brought about. In the nature of things there must be amendments because here we are dealing with people, and this Government is not callous towards people. When it finds out that there is a hitch somewhere or that there is room for improvement somewhere, it brings about those improvements and the Opposition are given the opportunity in such a discussion to put forward their ideas and to use their intelligence.

The little they have.

Whereas in the past the initiative was taken by these two Boards, the Group Areas Board and the Development Board, in demarcating and developing group areas, the initiative will now be taken by the Department. Whereas in the past there were four regional boards of the Group Areas Board, there will now be four regional offices staffed with under-secretaries, and another three sub-offices. Whereas in the past the Minister was the only link with the two Boards, the under-secretaries in the regions will now be the links in the administrative work of the Board, which will be concentrated ultimately in the Secretary of the Department. Surely that is the normal practice in this country in every Government Department. The official is disciplined and he knows that he can be called to account. There cannot be the same close contract between a board and a Minister as there can be between the Minister and the Secretary of the Department. In spite of the fact that the Department is only a few months old—it was established on 1 August—and the reorganization is naturally not in full swing yet, I am able to testify here to-day that the Planning Division has performed miracles in the past few months, in my own constituency, amongst others, where I have some experience of what has taken place in the past ten years. The Minister has announced that there are two divisions, the Planning Division and the Development Division. As I say, I have had experience of the Planning Division, and if the Development Division works along the same lines there will be no reason for complaint in the future. The fact of the matter is that the two Boards, the Group Areas Board and the Development Board, are not being eliminated at all. They will still have the final say in their investigations and in hearing the parties concerned. These are really the most important functions that these two Boards had in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come now to the institution of local government for non-Whites under the Group Areas Act. I want to do this more specifically with reference to the institution of local government for Coloureds. To be able to deal with that, I hope you will afford me the opportunity of sketching the background to the development of local government for Whites in South Africa, and naturally also with specific reference to the Cape Province. The fact of the matter is that our local government system compares very well with the best in the world, and that is probably so because the process which developed was a very slow and gradual one. In 1795, almost 150 years after the settlement here, there were only four districts in the Cape, namely Cape Town, Stellenbosch, Swellendam and Graaff-Reinet, which at that time had some form of local government, namely the landdros (magistrate) and the heemrade (members of county courts.) The local government system in the Cape developed out of this system of the landdros and heemrade. That was really the first form of local government. In 1843 there was established afdelingspadrade (divisional road boards) which marked the beginning of the separation between rural and urban local control. It is only the Cape Province to-day that has the Divisional Council system, but the first Divisional Council was only established in 1865 in Stellenbosch, more than 200 years after the settlement in South Africa.

In 1786—it is important to follow this point because it is here that the non-White comes into the picture—a college was appointed from the members of the Raad van Justisie (Council of Justice), a college consisting of three Company officials and three burgers nominated, not elected, by the “Politieke Raad” (Political Council) for Cape Town. It is interesting to see what the duty of these nominated members was. Their duty was to fix the price of bread and meat, to put forward taxation proposals, to control public works, and generally speaking to act as a municipal commission for the city. It was only in 1840, almost 200 years after the settlement here, that Cape Town was given representative local government. It was only in that year that the Whites in Cape Town were given an opportunity to elect their own local government. [Interjections.] In 1910 there were three forms of local government, namely the municipal system, the divisional councils, and, as a sub-division, of the divisional councils, a town council. That was laid down in Ordinance No. 10 of 1912 and re-enacted, with few amendments, in Ordinance No. 19 of 1951. That shows that it withstood the test of time.

Mr. Speaker, situated in the immediate vicinity of Cape town there are small towns which are 50 years or older and which to this very day have no form of local government. There are numerous others, but here I refer to Bloubergstrand and Melkbosstrand. Bloubergstrand and Melkbosstrand also have ratepayers’ associations. It is true that they are elected associations, but they are advisory and the Divisional Council is not obliged to listen to their advice. They can give advice if they wish to do so, but the Divisional Council is under no obligation at all to consult them, and in point of fact it frequently happens that they are not consulted. Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that although those small towns still have no say in their own affairs, there are some of them which are hesitant to accept local government. I want to say here to-day that if this legislation can be applied to them so that the local authority under whom they fall, namely the Divisional Council, will be obliged to consult them, they will be very grateful to the Government.

It must be clear from the preceding remarks that the development of local government for the Whites has been a lengthy, tortuous process. It is on this experience of the Whites that the proposals contained in this amending Bill are based. The Coloured is beginning at the point where the Whites began in Cape Town in 1786, with an Advisory Committee which should really be regarded as a preschool training ground. It is the kindergarten stage. The Bill prescribes that this Committee will be consulted by the White local authority and by the Administrator. Mr. Speaker. I have just said that places like Melkbosstrand and Bloubergstrand, which are inhabited by Whites, will be very grateful if this legislation could be applied to them with their ratepayers’ associations so that it will be obligatory to consult them.

The second stage is the establishment of management committees which are to be given certain powers by way of regulation, after consultation. These are the regulations about which the hon. member for South Coast tried to make such a fuss. He tried, unsuccessfully I think, to raise a hullabaloo over this matter. These are regulations which are framed after consultation with local authorities and with the Administrators. They will not be lightly framed. They will be framed after consultation with the local body, the local authority, and in consultation with the Administrator of the province concerned. The third step then is that the Minister, after this consultation, may order that a full-fledged local authority be instituted after proper enquiry—and that is laid down in the Act. It is clear from this that the non-Whites will be starting one stage, not before the Whites of 100 or 200 years ago, but one stage before the Whites of to-day. They will be starting one stage before Bloubergstrand and Melkbos, for example, who have the right to elect their advisory committee, or their ratepayers’ association or their vigilance committee. This measure does not give that opportunity to the Coloureds, and there are good reasons for it, to which I shall come in a moment. Their advisory committee is to be appointed.

A very thorough investigation was undertaken into the whole question of local government by non-Whites, particularly for the Coloureds in the Cape Province. In 1959 the then Administrator for the Cape Province, the late Dr. Otto du Plessis, appointed a Committee to investigate this whole matter. And what do we find amongst the recommendations of that Committee? When I read this amending Bill and the report of that Committee, I was quite satisfied, because the majority of the recommendations of the Committee have been incorporated in this Bill. They recommended that in instituting local government for the Coloureds in group areas, a supervisory committee of six members should be appointed for the province to do the preparatory work and to give guidance in the establishment of local government for the non-Whites.

What is the name of the Committee?

The Rossouw Committee. Instead of that supervisory committee that they recommended, and for which this Bill does not make provision, we have the Department of Community Development. In 1959 when this Committee sat they did not and could not foresee that there would come into being a Department of Community Development which would be able to serve as a supervisory body, as a body which could promote activities. But in reading this report it is interesting to note the Committee’s findings. This Committee found—and everyone who has any knowledge of the Coloureds will confirm this—that the Coloured was not displaying initiative yet, that he wanted to be guided by the Whites and to live in a groove-of dependence on the Whites.

You ought to know that is not true.

They go on to say that the intellectuals look down upon the masses and do not have their confidence.

Do you agree?

Yes, that is so. They are jealous of one another, but do not want to act against one another. The White man has to do that for them. Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that we have the material amongst the Coloureds, but with the trained material which is available to-day—there are hon. members opposite with whom I shall deal in a moment, who have had the opportunity of training people and who did not do so—with the material available to-day, not a single municipality can be staffed. The fact of the matter is that the Coloured people have demonstrated their organizing ability in one respect because they have had the opportunity of doing so. That is in the religious field. Another field is that of education, where they have also had an opportunity. But they have not had the opportunity in the field of local government. They could have had it, but they were begrudged that. And they were begrudged that, amongst others, by the people who sit opposite. I shall come to those hon. members in a moment. This legislation will give the Coloureds an opportunity which they have never had in the past. The Department is taking the initiative. The hon. member for South Coast had a great deal to say about the finances and wanted to know where the money would come from. I am convinced that the Government would be inclined to give the necessary financial assistance, because we are carrying out, and we must carry it out, the policy which the people of South Africa have instructed us to carry out.

Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the suggestions which the hon. the Minister proposes in this Bill in respect of local government for non-Whites, are based on the tried system of the Whites which compares well with the best in the world, and the tried system of Provincial Administrations and local authorities who have the knowledge, is not being overlooked, but the contrary is true. They are being roped in. Let me say this to hon. members, and particularly to the doubting Thomases on that side, that the majority, the greater majority of White municipalities and divisional councils in the Cape Province are prepared to allow themselves to be roped in to help the non-Whites in their own areas. You may rest assured, Sir, that there is no dislocation whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, let us ask ourselves why the Coloureds have such a big leeway to make up in this field. I may tell you, Sir, that a great amount of lip service is being paid to the cause of the Coloureds in this House, particularly from the benches opposite, but in practice nothing is done. Do you know, Sir, that in the Cape Provincial ordinances no differentiation is made between the races. No municipality is denied the right to employ Coloureds to serve their own people and to receive training in that way. The biggest municipality in the Cape Province, namely that of Cape Town, was in this position that the ordinances did not prohibit Cape Town from employing Coloureds and training them to serve their own people. But that was never done. And let me tell you, Sir, that the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) was a member of the Cape Town City Council for many years. He was even mayor of Cape Town at one time. The same applies to the hon. member for Boland. He was a member of the Cape Town City Council for a long time. If anybody is responsible for the position in which the Coloureds find themselves to-day, namely that not a single municipality can be staffed with people with a knowledge of municipal affairs, it is these hon. members who sit here as the mouthpiece of the Coloureds; they are greatly responsible for that. What are the facts? This Rossouw Commission give the facts. They say that no big municipality—the others could indeed do so—such as Cape Town, inter alia, could even tell them how many Coloured voters it had or how many Coloured property owners there were; that indicates the interest they have in the Coloureds. But do you know, Mr. Speaker, what is even more scandalous when it comes to the question of local government? It is that these municipalities, particularly the big ones—and let me say this, these are the very municipalities that are controlled by the United Party—have through the years deliberately kept the Coloureds off their local government voters’ rolls, and they did so legally. In 1951 an amending ordinance and a consolidating ordinance on local government was introduced, No. 19 of 1951. At that time the hon. member for Boland was still a member of the Provincial Council. The United Party had the majority in the Cape Provincial Council. The Administrator was Mr. Carinus, also a member of the United Party. Do you know how they amended the ordinance so as to keep the Coloureds off the voters’ roll? Whereas the position was that a lessee and owner qualified, they changed it in such a way that the lessee had to be a monthly tenant and not a weekly one. Do you know what the Cape Town municipality did then? They laid down by way of regulation that Coloureds could not rent houses from the municipality on a monthly basis, but only on a weekly basis, and in that way they kept them off the voters’ rolls. But these hon. members see their way clear to oppose this legislation. In 15 wards of the Cape Town municipality the Coloured people are far in the majority. When this report came out in 1959, it said that the Coloureds could only elect two members to the Cape Town City Council. To-day there are six. In spite of the fact that the Coloureds are far in the majority, they have been so successful in keeping them off the voters’ roll that there are only six. I predict that they will oppose this legislation with long pharisee faces and they will preach long pharisee sermons.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “ pharisee”

I withdraw it, Sir, but I say they will preach to us with long faces. The hon. members for Boland and Peninsula have consciences. I do not think it is a coincidence that they are both lawyers. They will preach to us, but the two hon. members who are going to tell us how we are ruining the Coloureds and how they belong to us as our allies, have throughout the years outwitted the gods in this respect, and what could have been a temple they have turned into a market place. The hon. members who are sitting in this House are sitting on two stools.

No, they are sitting on two pins.

Inherently they are United Party. They are anxious to have links with them but this Government is in power and it is doing a great deal for their constituents, as is again evidenced in this legislation. Now they are peeping to the Government with the peep of a sponger so that they may go and tell their constituents that they were the people who had obtained these things for them. But that will not avail them. I want to say this to those hon. members. It seems to me that as a result of the changed attitude of the Government, we are breaking through to the Coloureds and once we have done so the Coloureds will discard them and I do not think that day is too far distant. I think that will happen with the next election when Coloured representatives have to be elected. This Government is represented to the Coloureds as the oppressor of people but there is not a country in the world, there is not a government in the world which houses a family more comfortably and in neater houses at 95c per week than this Government. It is only in South Africa that happens and only under the National Party Government.

I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) and I want to say immediately that I do not intend wasting any of my limited time in this debate in answering the irrelevant statements made by him. I think most of the hon. members in this House will agree with me when I say that the hon. member has revealed a total ignorance of the main objects of this Bill. I feel that he really does not understand the new important provisions in this Bill and the serious implications which flow from them. All he has done is that he has succeeded in bringing some light relief into this debate, and we are thankful for that.

This, however, is a very important matter. It has serious implications. It is a matter which affects the fundamental rights of a large section of the citizens of this country, and I therefore do not propose to deal any further with the hon. member for Malmesbury. I repeat that the hon. member has failed ignominiously to deal with any of the real objects of the Bill. I want to say immediately that I propose moving an amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). The amendment which I propose to move reads as follows—

The Bill now before us seeks to amend certain provisions of the Group Areas Act and the Group Areas Development Act. It is not surprising that the hon. the Minister has to come forward with these amendments. Both these Acts have been described on numerous occasions in this House as being the most complicated and contentious Acts ever passed by Parliament. The Government was warned times without number in this House of the fact that the Group Areas Act was an ill-considered measure, and I want to say that the same criticism applies to the Bill now before the House. I say that it is an ill-considered measure which is going to have serious repercussions. We pleaded with the Government to allow the implications of the original Group Areas Act to be considered by an independent commission free from party politics. We felt that such a commission would at least be in the position to explore the very serious implications which flow from the Group Areas Act, and it would at least enable some of the difficulties which we foresaw to be examined and possibly to be overcome. However, the Government in its wisdom failed to pay any heed to these warnings. The result has been that year after year the Government has been forced to bring in amendments to the principal Act. All that has resulted from these amendments is this, that to-day we have on our Statute Book one of the most complicated measures that this country has ever known. Even trained lawyers have extreme difficulty in determining many of the provisions of this amended Act. How the layman in this country can find his way around this Act and know what the Government intends to be the law, is beyond me, because even trained lawyers, men with experience in the interpretation of laws, have extreme difficulty in extricating what the intentions of the Government are. The hon. the Minister has almost defiantly said this afternoon that he will not hesitate to come back to Parliament year after year if necessary to bring forward further amendments.

Of course.

I say that is the very reason why I regard this as an ill-considered measure. If the Minister had allowed this matter to be examined by an independent commission, a judicial commission if necessary, there would have been no necessity for the Minister to threaten defiantly in this House that he will not hesitate to come back year after year to amend it. All that the Minister has succeeded in doing is to make this Act more chaotic than it is at the moment. Despite the fact that the Minister gave us a very long dissertation on what is contained in this Bill, I warn him that he will come year after year and find himself in the invidious position of having to amend practically every one of the proposals contained in this Bill. It is true that there are in the Bill before the House several amendments which are merely consequential on the establishment of the Republic. I do not propose wasting time on those amendments. On the other hand, however, there are amendments which will have the most far-reaching effects in this country. I consider those amendments, to which I will refer in a moment, as being wholly unnecessary and ill-considered, and I consider that those amendments will bring about a great deal of unrest in this country and will aggravate—unfortunately I have to say this—the unfortunate anti-South African attitude which presently exists in the outside world. Above all, I want to say that these new proposals envisaged in this Bill will have the effect of alienating even further than is the case at the moment the Coloured people from the White people of South Africa. I do not propose to deal with some of the clauses in this Bill, because there is not enough time. I take it that we will have an opportunity in the Committee Stage to have a full discussion on the Minister’s proposed amendments. For the purpose of our discussion this afternoon I wish to confine myself to what I regard as the most important provisions of this Bill.

The most important provisions of the Bill are contained in Clause 22, and thereafter in Clause 28. In Clause 22 of the Bill the Minister seeks to substitute a new Section 25 in the place of Section 25 of the Act of 1957. This new proposal vests in the Minister the right to establish for any group area other than a group area for the White group, or for any portion of such area which is situated within the area of jurisdiction of a local authority, either a consultative committee or a management committee, to be constituted in accordance with regulations which the Minister has the sole right to prescribe. Now I say that the Minister is taking unto himself tremendous powers, unheard of powers, in that he can prescribe regulations which will lay down the method of establishment of these consultative committees or management committees from time to time in areas which up to now have fallen under the jurisdiction of a local authority. As I read the provisions of Clause 22, the Minister will have power at his sole discretion to set up these consultative committees or management committees in whatever portion of the group area he may determine, he being the sole arbiter in the matter, and he may vest in those committees the right to deal with any two or more such group areas, or even portions of group areas, whether they are contiguous or not, with a total disregard of the jurisdiction of the local authority.

Please read line 41 of the clause.

I have read it, but I wish the hon. the Minister would read it. As I read this clause, the Minister takes to himself the power at his sole discretion to set up these committees and to vest in them powers with a total disregard of the jurisdiction of the local authority. As though that were not sufficient, the Minister takes unto himself the right, at his sole discretion, to disestablish any consultative committee or management committee, without assigning any reason for so doing. In other words, he has an unfettered discretion.

In terms of sub-section (3) of the new Section 25, no local authority shall be entitled to make any decision in regard to any matter in respect of the area for which the consultative committee has been established until that consultative committee has been consulted and until it has given due consideration to any suggestions or comments which such committee may make. It is interesting to note that no provision is made in this clause as to what would happen if the local authority fails to give effect to any suggestion or comment which the consultative committee may make. In other words, all that this section provides is the necessity for the local authority to consult the consultative committee, but no provision is made whereby the local authority is obliged to give effect to its recommendations. I want to emphasize that, because I want to come back to it in a moment, to show the fatuousness of these proposals and how, whether wittingly or not, the Minister is leading the Coloured people up the garden path. By reason of the fact that he has omitted to make any provision in the Bill as to what will happen if the local authority fails to take into account the comments or recommendations of the consultative committee, I say that he renders completely innocuous the work of these consultative committees. I repeat that all this section provides is the necessity for the local authority to consult the consultative committee, but no provision is made whereby the local authority is obliged to give effect to any suggestions the consultative committee may make. To my mind, this section has been cleverly designed by someone, whether it is the Minister or someone else above him, and it really amounts to nothing as far as the Coloureds are concerned.

The Minister tries to create the impression that the consultative committee will have some important say in the local authority which exercises jurisdiction in any area for which a consultative committee has been established. In point of fact, I suggest that the consultative committee will have no say. As I read the section, all that the local authority is required to do is to consult with the consultative committee and to give due consideration to any suggestions made by such committee, but the local authority is not obliged to give effect to any of the recommendations of the consultative committee. I ask the Minister, therefore, what value is there in establishing these consultative committees?

But I want to deal with the matter also from another point of view. If the hon. the Minister intends to force the local authority to give effect to the suggestions or recommendations of the consultative committee, or to any comments it may make, he knows that he will be making a marked intrusion on the rights and privileges of local authorities, because then the local authorities will merely be a rubber stamp to give effect to the recommendations of the consultative committee. He will be making a marked intrusion on the rights and privileges which local authorities have enjoyed in this country ever since their establishment. The Minister may laugh, but he finds himself in this dilemma.

I am laughing at you.

The Minister does not wish to deny local authorities the right of controlling their area of jurisdiction because they happen to be local authorities controlled by Europeans, but at the same time he is in this dilemma, that he establishes these consultative committees which will only have the opportunity of making recommendations, and the local authority will only be obliged to consult with them, take note of what they say, and pass whatever laws they like, with a total disregard of the suggestions made by the consultative committee. This is the type of self-government that the Minister envisages for the Coloureds.

In terms of the same section, the Minister has the right to establish management committees. Here again, the management committees only have the right to exercise their powers and carry out their functions and perform their duties under the supervision and control of the local authority. If you are going to appoint true management committees, vesting in them the right of self-government, a word which the hon. the Minister and the Prime Minister like so much …

Did you not listen to what I said this afternoon? Were you not here?

I listened very attentively, but I am afraid the Minister does not realize what his Bill contains. I am saying what this Bill provides, never mind what the Minister said. In terms of this Bill, the management committee will have to act under the supervision and control of the local authority, and the local authority is controlled by Whites. Mr. Speaker, what sort of autonomy does the Minister suggest that is either in the case of the consultative committees or in the case of the management committees? In the case of the consultative committees their suggestions or comments can be treated with absolute contempt by the local authorities, and no provision is made in the Bill for the local authorities to give effect to their suggestions. In the case of the management committee, the powers and functions and duties of the committee shall be carried out under the supervision and control of the local authority. I ask the Minister whether this is the type of self-government that he and the Prime Minister have designed to give the Coloured people? Is this the self-government about which we have heard so much? Does the Minister think for a single moment that the Coloured people will be taken in by this talk of self-government? Is this the type of self-government which the Prime Minister had in mind for the Coloured people when he addressed the Coloured Affairs Council? If so, I am telling the Minister, and the Government, that they are just wasting their time, because the Coloured people as a whole will not be taken in by such a promise. The Coloured people are not interested in this type of self-government, or, what is more, in any type of self-government. All they want is to be treated like ordinary citizens of this country, and the Minister will not see that.

He is not allowed to.

Another point I want to raise with the Minister, and which he glossed over to-day, is this. I want him to tell this House now how he intends appointing these consultative and management committees? He must tell us now and not wait until he frames his regulations. Are they going to be appointed by the Coloured communities themselves, or does the Minister intend appointing these Committeess with a total disregard for the popular vote of the Coloured people? These are matters the country want to know. Does the Minister really think that the Coloured people are going to be bound by decisions made by consultative and management committees which will be appointed by the Minister without the Coloured people having any say in the matter? I want to say this, that I was struck very forcibly by an article which appeared in the Spectator, under the heading “Call Me Not Fool”, on 2 February 1962. The writer dealt with the Government’s primitive belief in the magic words “self-government”, and after dealing with the granting of co-called self-government to the African people of the Transkei, he goes on to deal with the granting of self-government to the Coloured people, as announced by the hon. the Prime Minister, and by the Minister of Coloured Affairs a few days ago, and this is what the article says in regard to self-government for the Coloureds—

Mark those words, Sir—

Are you the author of that article?

I would like hon. members to listen to this.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, the hon. member can take part in the debate; I have only 40 minutes and I have much more to say. The article goes on to say—I am afraid I have to inflict it on the Minister, he must hear it—

Is this the type of consultative committee, is this the type of management committee, that the Minister has in mind for the Coloured people under this Bill? The article then goes on to say—

This is the first step in the Prime Minister’s vision of a State within a State.

The article continues—

Did you write that?

No, I did not. I wish I could write like this. Sir, I agree with this article. I do not by any means suggest that the hon. the Prime Minister is a fool. I wonder if he really thinks that the granting of this so-called self-government to sections of the people is going to palliate the unfortunate conditions that prevail in this country and the unfortunate stigma which has attached to South Africa in recent years. I feel that the consultative and management committees which the hon. the Minister has in mind in this Bill and which he himself will appoint, will have the same effect on Coloured opinion and on the outside world as the Coloured Advisory Council, about which I read a quotation a minute ago. I feel that there is no necessity whatsoever for the establishment of these separate consultative and management committees, and if the hon. the Minister were to be honest about it and take time to consider this matter without having regard to his political affiliations, I think he will agree. I say that the Coloured people of South Africa are completely integrated into the White community. The economic integration of the two communities is such that they cannot be separated. The local authorities in the Cape have administered the matters which has come under their jurisdiction for the benefit of the general community, that is to say, for the benefit of the White as well as the Coloued ratepayers. The Coloured ratepayers have in certain instances been able by popular vote to elect their own Coloured representatives to the City Council, particularly in a city like Cape Town. They are quite satisfied with the continuance of that system. What is wrong with that system? They can only exercise their right of electing Coloured Councillors in respect of areas in which they predominate, in areas like Athlone and so forth where there is a large number of Coloured people resident and which constitute a ward of Cape Town. What on earth is wrong with that system whereby they are allowed to return their own people to represent them in the local body? I say that they are quite satisfied with the continuance of that system. These are rights and privileges which they have enjoyed in this country ever since the establishment of local authorities in South Africa. They have enjoyed these rights for many, many decades. Their right to vote for representatives on the local authority is based on their qualification of either owning or occupying property within the jurisdiction of the local authority. In other words, it has always been a basic principle in this province—I talk particularly of the Cape Province—that anyone who pays rates directly or indirectly in respect of property which he owns or occupies is entitled to the municipal franchise. This system has prevailed here for very many years. I ask the hon. the Minister what reason is there for our having to make a radical change now in our municipal franchise laws? Under the new Section 25bis in Clause 22, the Minister will now have the right of establishing local authorities in respect of those areas for which management committees have been established. He can at his own will dispense with these management committees and at his own discretion establish local authorities. Sir, as I read Clause 28, which introduces the new Section 43bis, to which the hon. the Minister referred this afternoon, the hon. the Minister seeks to take unto himself the right to make regulations whereby any person who becomes qualified to vote for or becomes a member of any consultative or management committee, shall not be registered for the election of members of a local authority. This afternoon the hon. the Minister became hot under the collar when I asked him quite genuinely whether he intended that to be the case. He told me not to ask questions at that stage.

I asked you to raise this matter during the debate, and I said that I would then reply to it.

He told me not to ask him questions but to raise the matter in the course of my speech and he said that he would then reply to me.

And then you tried to insult me.

No, I did not say another word. The Minister told me to raise the matter in the course of my speech and I am doing so now. I hope the hon. the Minister will withdraw that remark of his. Sir, I ask the hon. the Minister now whether in the course of his reply he will give us the answer to the question that I put to him. It is a matter of policy, and it is most important that we should know the reply before we go any further; and as it is a matter of policy the hon. the Minister must reply; he need not go and take any advice in regard to this matter, because he is responsible for policy. I want to ask the Minister whether he intends that any Coloured person who becomes qualified to vote for or becomes a member of any consultative or management committee shall also be eligible to vote in the elections of local authorities. Secondly, does he intend to deprive the Coloured people of their municipal franchise which they have at the moment and which they are entitled to by reason of the fact that they are property owners and ratepayers in these municipalities? Does the hon. the Minister intend to deprive the Coloured people of their municipal franchise. I want to make it clear to the Minister that here I refer not only to those who are already on the municipal roll but also to those who may hereafter become duly qualified as ratepayers to participate in elections of the local authority. Is it the Minister’s intention that they will still retain their franchise right, or does he intend to deprive them of those franchise rights? I think it is essential that the hon. the Minister should specifically answer those questions, not evasively but specifically, in the course of his reply. The country is entitled to an answer from the hon. the Minister on this question of future policy. As I read the proposed new Section 43bis (b) it will certainly prevent any future Coloured people from qualifying for the ordinary municipal franchise. If the hon. the Minister wants to assure me that is not so, I will be very happy to hear it. If I am correct this will have the effect, as I see it, of depriving the Coloured people, at least in the future, of their municipal franchise. We will then have this absolutely ludicrous position that the Coloured man who owns property in the city of Cape Town will be deprived of his municipal vote in respect of that property if by reason of the qualifications that the hon. the Minister will prescribe the Coloured man becomes qualified to vote for the consultative or management committees which the Minister proposes to establish. In other words, in the words of the writer of the article from which I have just read, the article in the Spectator, can one imagine a more laughable situation? Sir, the Coloured man’s property within the municipality is liable to attachment in respect of municipal loans; it forms part of the security of the city. His property therefore becomes liable to attachment in respect of municipal loans, yet he will be deprived of the vote in that municipality notwithstanding the fact that he is the owner of property in that municipality, property which is subject to attachment, and notwithstanding the fact that he is a ratepayer in respect of that property. No, Sir, the more one examines the proposals of this scheme, the more one comes to the conclusion that the granting of this so-called selfgovernment to the Coloured people amounts to nothing more than an absolutely ludicrous situation. It is amazing to me that at this juncture when we in South Africa have endured so much criticism which has been levelled against us from all corners of the earth, we should seek to embark on a scheme which will bring us into greater ridicule and contempt in the eyes of the outside world. Sir, who has asked for this self-government by the Coloured people? I want the hon. the Minister to tell the country. Is there any responsible section of the Coloured community that is seeking self-government? Is there any section of the Coloured community which has expressed its dissatisfaction with the retention of the municipal franchise which they have had for so many years in this country? What necessity is there for trying to herd the Coloured people into separate territorial kraals, thus cutting them off entirely from the White people of South Africa? Is this not another step in the Government’s policy of fragmentation, this time, however, with citizens of our own country who have become integrated in the White economy of South Africa? That is the distinction. What the Government has done with the African people we know, but now they are attempting to do this with our own Coloured citizens who have become entirely integrated with the White people of this country.

Do you mean the way we are protecting them in Athlone?

Who is protecting them?

How are you protecting them?

Does the hon. the Minister not realize that in setting up this State within a State he is breaking up the economic structure of the Republic? The hon. the Minister seems to be obsessed with the necessity of bringing in legislation for the Coloured people. Not a session passes that we do not have one Act after another dealing with the Coloured people.

You will have a few more in the years to come.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the Coloured people are sick and tired of this legislation. Every piece of legislation which this Government has introduced involving our Coloured people is nothing more or less than a step forward on the road to the Nationalist’s policy of apartheid; that is all it is. It is not in the interest of the Coloured people. It is a step forward on this Nationalist road to apartheid. Sir, I say that the interests of the Coloured people are totally disregarded in the legislation introduced by the Government and they are particularly disregarded in the Bill before the House. One would have imagined that with all the difficulties with which our country is confronted, the Government would have realized that the time has come to call a halt to the continuance of these discriminatory laws and to this discriminatory form of legislation. What the Coloured people want are not new municipalities for themselves, nor is it self-government as envisaged by the hon. the Minister or even by the Prime Minister; what they want is a general improvement in their social conditions and in their general living conditions. What they want more than this so-called self-government is the right to earn a decent living in their own country, the right to attain a better standard of living without the restrictions of job reservations. I ask the hon. the Minister quite seriously: when will the Government realize that the position of the Coloureds in this country presents no real problem. They are part and parcel of the South African economy. When, Sir, will the Government realize that it is this continuous discriminatory legislation which is not only antagonizing our Coloured people but is causing so much adverse criticism of South Africa in the outside world? Does the hon. the Minister not realize that without the necessity of group areas, without the necessity of stigmatizing the Coloured people, there has been over the years a natural tendency on the part of the Coloured people voluntarily to segregate themselves residentially. This residential segregation has come about on a voluntary basis on the part of the Coloured people without the necessity of imposing the provisions of the Group Areas Act upon them, without the necessity of stigmatizing them, as has been done in these discriminatory laws which have been inflicted upon them by this Government over the years. I want to quote to the hon. the Minister the City of Cape Town as the principal example in this connection, and I do so by reason of the fact that Cape Town, as we all know, has the largest number of Coloured people in its midst. As soon as it was able to do so under the provisions of the Slums Act, as far back as 1936, the Cape Town municipality started establishing housing schemes for our Coloured people. We know that the war years intervened and that there was a slowing down in the provision of housing. I want to say this in fairness to the Government that after the war, when they came into power in 1948, they did speed up housing. I want to give credit where credit is due. But, Sir, what happened? Before the Group Areas Act came into force the Coloured people voluntarily segregated themselves residentially, without the necessity of imposing the provisions of the Group Areas Act upon them and without the necessity of imposing these discriminatory laws. I repeat that there was a natural tendency on their part to segregate themselves residentially from the European people of this city. The position to-day is that on this voluntary basis principally, decent residential areas have been established to which the Coloured people have flocked. They form part of the municipality of this city. They have elected their own representatives to the City Council of Cape Town. What harm has resulted from their having done that? [Time limit.]

I second the amendment. In view of the lateness of the hour and with your permission, Sir, I think it would be appropriate for me at this stage to move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned until 28 February.