I want to go further into the question of the serious incidence of crime in South Africa, and I do so because I think that in certain non-white townships the matter has got somewhat out of hand. Because the situation is a difficult one and because the fight against crime is being waged by our Police Force—and it is a hard fight that is going on—I want to associate myself with the comments of other hon. members in expressing our gratitude to those policemen who are waging this battle on our behalf. I would like to couple with them those policemen who are waging this fight in South West Africa. We were very interested in the statement made here yesterday by the hon. the Deputy Minister, and we are glad to know that the situation seems to be under control. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned that more than 700 had left the country to receive training, and that so far only a small number had come back. We would be glad to know whether he expects more of these people to come back, or whether their morale has been broken? Whilst speaking of those two sections, I want to couple with them our detective branch. Many people I have met have been delighted to see how rapidly members of the detective branch have located the thief or the robber in cases within their knowledge and which they have brought to my attention. I think this speaks fairly highly for the work they are doing. I will deal later with the question of police reservists which was dealt with in a recent statement.

Sir, I am a little bit worried to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister that the police are now up to full strength, because it makes me wonder whether in fact the authorized strength is „great enough. We have heard from the hon. member for Aliwal what the position is in his constituency with about 260 miles of border and a very small police force indeed to care for that great area. Sir, we are aware of the fact that the report of the Commissioner of Police came out very late. The hon. the Deputy Minister explained why it was so late, but I do not think that it is really satisfactory for us to be debating a report which is almost two years out of date. I want to point out to him that the report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis of London for the year ending 31st December, 1965, was signed by the Commissioner of Police there on 13th June, 1966; it was in print in July and it was in our library on 19th August, 1966. This is a document of nearly 100 pages. It contains an immense number of schedules and graphs and all kinds of comparisons. With our shortage of staff we have not been able to produce a similar report. I would urge that the Commissioner’s report should not only come out earlier but that it should contain much greater detail and comparisons and an analysis of the whole crime situation.

Sir. I do say with great regret that the crime position in many of our non-white townships is really very serious. I am sure that this is not a matter about which the police are complacent, but I am not satisfied that there is enough sense of urgency in the proper quarters in tackling this problem. It is hardly necessary for me to cite figures to show this. I might mention that in the Cape the serious increase in crime is shown by the increase in the number of preparatory examinations. In 1965 there were 742; in 1966 there were 829. There were 673 cases of serious crime in 1966 and the Attorney-General of the Cape said on 19th January of this year that these figures showed an alarming increase in crime. Sir, we had the statement in the local Press recently by the Deputy Mayor of Cape Town in reference to the Coloured townships, in which he said among other things—

That situation is unfortunately even worse in the Bantu townships of Johannesburg, and here I am thinking particularly of Soweto. I do not think it is necessary for me to dwell upon the activities of criminal gangs there; they are too well known and they have recently been discussed in articles in the Press there; but I think that the comment of the manager of the non-European Affairs Department of Johannesburg, Mr. Carr, is significant. Mr. Carr said—

The officer in charge of the Meadowlands police station, Capt. Fouche, said—

Sir in the short term it would seem that the only answer to this is more police and better police methods. Admittedly the long term is a matter which is largely out of the hands of the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I do not doubt that he will be pressing extremely hard to bring about changes which will lead to important sociological developments and thus reduce the impulse to commit crime. In this connection I would like to welcome the recent statement by the police to the effect that Bantu reservists are to be recruited for use in the native townships of Johannesburg. This statement appeared on 13th of this month and is to the effect that in all 500 Bantu are to be recruited as reservists. Sir, we welcome this very much. I would like before dealing with this to pay tribute to the work of the reservists. In fact, we know from the latest police report that there are 17,415 Whites and 572 Asiatics and Coloureds, and it is quite clear from the remarks of the Commissioner that these reservists are doing an extremely fine job. Indeed the Deputy Commissioner goes so far as to say—and I am in no position to disagree with him nor do I seek to do so—that these reservists are developing into a mighty weapon against lawlessness and have become an important factor in the discharge of police duties. We are very delighted to know that the head of our police holds that view of the work of the reservists, and it certainly accords with what little I have seen of their work. Here we have an entirely new departure in Government policy, namely, to recruit Bantu reservists for this work. We welcome it. Sir, I hope we will not be considered to be uncharitable if we just remind hon. members opposite that, of course, if we were to do this it would be integration but when they do it is not integration, and all is well. We know that already our Police Force, the standing force, consists of virtually half non-Whites and half Whites. I do not think that we should have these arguments; but if they are thrown at us it must not be taken amiss if we point to what the Government is doing. I say at once that we welcome this. If the reports about the seriousness of crime, particularly in Soweto, are correct or nearly correct, then I hope that the police will be very careful in introducing these reservists, to see that they are adequately backed up by the police so that they will be able to get reasonable control of the position right from the start. We would be extremely unhappy if this experiment with the reservists was not the success which it certainly can be. In other words, there must be sufficient force and certainty behind these people so that they can get on top of the criminals and not the other way round. There is the danger, of course, that the reservists may be open to protection rackets; there is that fear. That apparently has not been the case with the Coloured and Asiatic reservists in the Service and I see no reason to believe that that should be so in the case of the Bantu reservists, but I do ask the police to be particularly careful, as I am sure they will be, to see that this whole scheme is launched as a well-planned scheme. If necessary it could be introduced in stages so that there is no possibility of these reservists themselves getting cut up and perhaps losing morale. [Time expired ]

When the House adjourned last night, it was my intention to refer to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Musgrave. The hon. member for Pinelands also touched on that subject and I regret that the hon. member for Pine-lands, who made such a constructive contribution, found it necessary to link the question of the incorporation of Bantu reservists to the question of integration, whereas that is indicative of the very opposite, namely that people are being taught to serve their own people.

When we conduct a debate on a Vote such as this, the first question we have to ask ourselves is whether we are receiving value for our money from this Department? I do not want to contend here that the Police Force consists of a collection of angels. Our Police Force is not a band of little angels without any faults. If they were angels they would have been out of place in this world which has just been described to us. But we have to ask ourselves the question whether we receive value for the money we appropriate for this Vote and then we have to consider the three matters which have been raised here, namely the question of intimidation, unsolved murders and the increase in crime. It has been said here that the Police should take more positive steps. We have witnessed the spectacle here of criticism being levelled in regard to positive Police action, and in consequence of the matters raised by the hon. member for Pinelands in respect of certain peri-urban areas of Johannesburg. I want to contend here that when the Police take positive action against those who are idlers they are clearing such areas and eliminating the potential source of that type of crime. Law-abiding citizens who are in employment are not usually criminals. People who are unemployed and who do not belong there are the ones who commit what has been described here as “technical” offences; the potential criminals are the ones who cause trouble.

As regards the question of intimidation and unsolved murders which has been mentioned here. I agree with the hon. members that these are matters about which we are all concerned. Every right-minded person in the world, particularly a legislator, must feel concerned about that, but before we give any verdict in that regard we must first view the matter in its right perspective, adopt a realistic attitude and then ask ourselves the question what the position has been elsewhere over a comparable period. As regards intimidation we must take care not to attach too much value to exaggerated, sensational reports. In the second place we have to compare conditions here with comparable conditions in other countries. We know that at present a case is being tried in Britain which is receiving world-wide attention, the concerning the very question of intimidation. Intimidation is not peculiar to us.

Let us compare the position in South Africa as regards murder and robbery to the position in two centres such as New York and London.

If we take a comparable period, namely 1964, it strikes us that the percentage of cases solved in respect of all crimes in New York is only 59.9 per cent; that the percentage of cases solved in respect of the seven most serious crimes, namely murder, rape, robbery, serious assault, burglary, etc., is only 37.2 per cent. Then we come to the renowned Scotland Yard, the most famous Police Force in the world. We find that for the same year the percentage of cases solved in respect of all crimes is only 21.6per cent; that it is 76 per cent as far as murder is concerned and 27 per cent as far as robbery is concerned. To this I contrast the state of affairs in the Republic of South Africa for the period 1964-’65. We find that the percentage of cases solved in respect of all crimes is 90.1 per cent for this period. This percentage naturally includes offences as well as law-infringements. But let us make a comparison as regards the particular crimes which have been mentioned here. In that case we find that the percentage of murder cases which were solved is 83.9 per cent, as compared with Scotland Yard where that figure is 76 per cent and the United States where that figure is 37.2per cent. As regards robbery, we find that the percentage in respect of cases solved is 61.8 per cent as compared with Scotland Yard where that percentage is 27 per cent. We do not say that we are perfectly satisfied but we do say that our Police Force under the particular circumstances need not take a back seat to the best Police Forces in the world. If we consider the question of the increase in crime and we consult the report of the American Federal Bureau of Investigation for 1964 we find the following. The director states—

If we consult the report of the London Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for the year 1964, we find the following significant statements—

What we are dealing with here is therefore a world-wide phenomenon which has not passed as by. But what makes the contribution of our police even more striking, is the fact that they have a special task, that they have to do their work in a country with an exceptionally heterogeneous population, with problems in regard to distance which those other countries do not have and that here they have a special task, namely that they also have to serve as the first line of defence. As we yesterday learnt from the report of the hon. the Minister, the Police here are faced with combating sabotage and terrorism and communistic infiltration.

Under those circumstances I regard the Police Report which has been presented to this House as being an historical document. The contents of page 10 must make a special impression on everyone who reads it, because there we find a businesslike, factual report in Police language. This report really is one which tells of the dramatic occurrences of 1964-’65. On that page we read of the success of the Police against the African Resistance Movement, Umkonto we Ziswe, the Fischer case, etc. To my mind we do not assess this cold, businesslike report at its true value, because, in actual fact, the Police Report on that page reflects the record of the rescue of a nation. It is a fantastic success story of which we can truly say, “Truth is stranger than fiction.”

If one reads that report one is further impressed by the achievements of the S.A. Criminal Bureau and of the Dog School. Perhaps we will never be quite satisfied with all these achievements, but I do think that while we are being critical in a constructive way, we still have occasion to be truly thankful. If we read through the report we cannot help but agree, on behalf of the nation, with the final paragraph of that report in spite of all the things which cause us concern. The final sentence reads as follows—

In the light of this report we cannot do otherwise but make that the conclusion to which we come, and I also want to say that I am thankful that both sides of this House approach this Police Report in that spirit.

One cannot allow an opportunity such as this to go by without expressing, with real pride, one’s appreciation of the conscientiousness with which the police perform their task. What struck me yesterday while I was listening to the hon. member for Musgrave, was that he said that the crime wave was increasing in the large cities, particularly in Durban, Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. That is so. We must readily admit that the crime wave in those cities is increasing, but strangely enough the people who govern in those large cities are the very ones who are not well-disposed to the policy of the Government. They are the very cities where the city councils are liberalistically orientated. They are the people who have always worked for integration, and who do not want to maintain discipline. They are the people who do not want to accept the Government’s policy of separate residential areas. Those are the very cities in respect of which we have had to pass legislation so as to implement the policy of the Government. It is very clear to us that discipline is not being maintained by those city councils. They are not exercising their powers to assist in combating crime. Why does one not find this in the rural towns? The reason is that those towns maintain order. Those liberalistic city councils have the power to apply a curfew arrangement, but why do they not want to do so? Let me say this: if a white person at present wants to enter a non-white residential area in Port Elizabeth, he must have a permit, or let me rather use the word which will be more acceptable to the hon. member for Houghton. We must carry a pass if we want to enter a non-white residential area. But what is happening in our white residential areas? One has an influx of loafers, of scoundrels, of robbers and of thieves who spy on one’s property from morning to night and who make use of every possible opportunity to steal. Now my question is this: If I, also as a member of this House, have to carry a pass in Port Elizabeth in order to enter a non-white residential area, why do those non-whites have the right to loaf about freely in the white residential areas without a pass? The reason is that the cities do not want to exercise discipline. They have even thrown open the parks to those people. Just see what it looks like in these beautiful Gardens in Cape Town. They are nothing but a haven for idlers and loafers who sit there and drink in public. At night innocent people are stabbed to death in the main streets of Cape Town. What are the municipalities doing? Why do they not make arrangements to prevent these things? It is stated in this Evening Post that 27,352 criminal cases served before the court in Port Elizabeth in the past year, and one must not forget that every person who committed burglary or a criminal offence was not apprehended and brought to court. That figure only relates to those who were prosecuted in Port Elizabeth. Now the question is what has to be done to arrest this crime wave and to eliminate this loafer element which finds pleasure in never doing a stitch of work, but makes a living by stealing? In South Africa there is no reason why a person has to steal. There is employment for everyone. I say our prisons must not be converted into places of “free board and lodging”. We have to take harsh action against these criminals. Let us establish work colonies and let there be rehabilitation centres for these loafers, whether they are white or black. If these loafers were to be trained in penal colonies where punishment were to be employed, we would put an end to this crime wave. Now hon. members must not say that I want Ito act harshly. That is the only language which these loafers will understand. If the city councils do not want to take action and do not want to make use of the powers which they have, the time has arrived for the Government to see to it that law and order will be maintained in our cities. We may well say that we do not have a sufficient number of police. I readily accept that. If we do not have a sufficient number of police, let us make use of the reservists to assist at night in putting an end to this loafing. In Port Elizabeth or in any large city one cannot leave one’s house by itself for a single day. If one goes away for a few days’ holiday, one’s house has been burgled and wrecked by the time one returns. One goes to work in the morning, those loafers walk around in the streets and, on one’s return, one finds one’s house burgled. There is no reason why they must he allowed there. Consequently, I say that we must have penal colonies and rehabilitation centres for those people who do not want to work. [Interjections.] There is also another kind of crime which we have to combat, and that is the crime which the Opposition commits by wanting to murder the soul of the nation.

I do not wish to deal in any way with the speech made by the hon. member who has just sat down. I would like to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister gave details of the number of white members in the Police Force, but he did not refer to the Coloured or the Bantu, and did not tell us how many of them are short in the authorized establishment: But I am not going to ask the Deputy Minister for these figures now. I presume that there has been a similar increase in these numbers.

I should like to pay tribute to the S.A. Police, but particularly do I want to pay tribute to the part which has been played in the Police Force by the non-Whites of this country. I say that it is to the ever-lasting credit of the Coloured, Indian and Bantu people that they are prepared, under these difficult circumstances at times, to play their part in the maintenance of law and order in this country. I want to say that the extent to which they have succeeded in proving their worth, which is not always recognized by hon. members of this House, is reflected on page 1 of the report, where we see that the S.A. Police Star of Merit was received by 46 non-Whites. But what is more significant is the large percentage who received the Police Medal for Faithful Service. Whereas 880 Whites received the medal, the number of non-Whites who received it was as high as 631, which, I think, is a reflection of the service which the non-Whites have rendered to this country in regard to maintaining law and order. I want to make an appeal to the members of this House and to the country in general to acknowledge the part these non-Whites played in this regard.

I am rather sorry that more Coloureds do not join the Police Force. I see, according to the report, that there were 138 recruits. I know that there are Coloured reservists, and I hope that they will be encouraged to join the police. There may be a reason why they do not join in greater numbers, and probably it is the salaries they get. I understand that my colleague will, if time permits, deal with that question, and so I will not elaborate on at except to point out that on page 19 of the Estimates I see that the starting salary for Coloureds is R576, and that they go up by R42 per annum to R1,320. When they reach that scale I do not know, but I do submit that the lack of enthusiasm to join the police may be due entirely to the commencing salaries they are paid. I know, too, that I have spoken to Coloured detectives and that they do not get allowances for their· clothing, and it is a tremendous part of their income which goes into dressing themselves decently. But my colleague, as I say, will probably deal more fully with the question of payment.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) has spoken about the skollies and the “wont-works”. I wonder to what extent dagga is responsible for this. I was quite amazed when I read page 5 of this Police Report to find the almost unbelievably large amount of dagga which was confiscated by the police, amounting in all to 1,680,000 lbs. One may presume that if the police confiscated such a large amount, an equally large amount reached the public, and one wonders whether the time has not arrived to take steps in this regard. I think that a lot of this crime is due to dagga. I would like:to say that while the police are very open about the figures they give, they must surely by now know that in the Transkei, an area which is supposed to be properly patrolled, nearly 90,000 lbs. of dagga was confiscated, compared to the Western Province, where 1,487 lbs. were confiscated. But what amazes me more is that in the Northern Transvaal 1,465,669 lbs. of dagga were confiscated. Surely if the police know the areas where the dagga comes from, the time has surely come when there must be a crusade against the people who grow it. I know the police do their best, and I fully appreciate the task which faces them. This is not criticism, but merely a request that something should be done, because this is a habit-forming drug which has evil consequences. The bright spot about (this report is that the police were sufficiently vigilant to be able to confiscate such a large amount of dagga, but I do say that we should do something more to eradicate this noxious weed.

In conclusion, I want to say that I hope the time will come when the Coloured people will answer the call of the Police Force and join in larger numbers, but I want to ask the Deputy Minister please to make it a little more attractive for them. I realize that I cannot ask for higher salaries and that I may be faced with the old cry that it will encourage inflation, but I do not think that is so. If you want the Coloureds to join the Police Force, you must make it a little more attractive to them.

At the outset I should like to associate myself with my colleagues who expressed their gratitude to the police for the worthy way in which they have been seeing to the safety of our people in South Africa up to now. In the circumstances under which they have to work, theirs is definitely not a pleasant task, and consequently I say that one can express nothing but one’s appreciation and one’s gratitude—also to the Minister for the report he presented yesterday—for the safety measures taken by the police and for the way in which the police combated terrorism in South West Africa. Furthermore, I should like to see the public, instead of criticizing the police, making a major contribution by co-operating with and assisting the police, particularly in the larger centres where it is possible for us to bring crime to their attention, instead of doing what the hon. member for Houghton does, namely, trying to find fault all the time with the way in which the police are performing their duties. Yesterday the hon. member for Houghton complained about the organized raids carried out by the police in the larger centres. I now ask myself in what way does the hon. member think she is serving South Africa? With the connections which she has with people who, as we know them, are not all well-disposed towards South Africa, one wonders whether she would not be rendering South Africa a better service if she were to try and assist the police in bringing to book those people she is trying to protect. If she were to prefer working in that direction, she would be rendering the country a much better service than she is rendering it by trying to sow suspicion on police action, as she does from time to time.

There is another thing I should like to rectify, and that is something which occurred in South West Africa where accusations were made against the entire Police Force, accusations it did not deserve. That happened in 1962 when the leader of the United National South West Party in South West Africa, Advocate Niehaus—politically speaking he is no longer alive—deemed it fit for that party, with himself at the spearhead, to give evidence before the then much-talked-of Carpio Commission who paid a visit to this country. I want to ask whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agrees with the evidence which the leader of that party gave before that Commission? I just want to deal with the evidence relating to the police. Last year the Leader of the Opposition thought it proper to open the congress of that party and on that occasion he also propagated his policy. Therefore they are kindred spirits. When supporters of the United Party proceed to South West Africa, they join that party and vice versa. However, he thought it proper to say at the opening of that congress in November last year that the United Party believed that its federation policy was the answer to the constitutional problems of South West Africa. Now I want to ask him whether he defends what Advocate Niehaus said before that Commission? According to paragraph 205 of the Carpio Report, he said the following—

I just want to say that that evidence does not at all reflect the opinion of the public in general. To my mind that was a most absurd statement to make and consequently one is not surprised that he now finds himself in the position in which he does, namely, that he and his party were totally rejected at the first election subsequent to that statement and that they no longer represent a single constituency in the Legislative Assembly. That statement surely represents one of the biggest untruths and crimes ever perpetrated against the Police Force. Consequently I want to know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agrees with his kindred spirit or whether he will repudiate that statement. [Interjections.] That is another illustration of what is going on in the Opposition. They do not know where they are standing. According to the United Party newspaper of South West Africa, the Leader of the Opposition opened the congress of that party in South West Africa on 25th November, and said that his policy should be implemented in South West Africa. [Interjection.] Consequently we want to know what the Leader of the Opposition has to say about that, whether he defends the evidence Advocate Niehaus gave before the Carpio Commission, who is our enemy, when he slandered the Police Force before those people.

The hon. member for Marienthal has brought up a political subject. It has been the tendency with both him and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) to try to bring politics into this most important Vote. I think the hon. member for Marienthal should be more informed of the fact that the party he was talking about in South West Africa has nothing to do with the United Party, although our leader opened their congress, but I do not want to go into that question much further. I think my hon. leader can look after himself very well.

To come back to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) and his remarks about the control of loafers and the necessity of carrying a pass, if we read the report before us we find that the cases tried in regard to curfew regulations and the production of documents by Bantu, etc., amount in the one case to 143,000 and there is another 162,000, so where will we get if we start introducing more passes and more curfews? I would like to put the point to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) that we have to make up our minds. If we are going to have Coloured and Bantu servants in our homes, where are they to go in their off times? If your servant has two hours of relaxation during the day, where must he go, if he lives in a white area and works there? They have to go somewhere. There must be facilities for them. We cannot close all the parks to them and we cannot close the streets to them. Where we accept these people to work in our houses and on our farms we must also accept that we have to provide facilities for them.

But I should like to get away from politics, from talking about Liberals and all that and get back to the Vote. I also should like to pay a tribute to our Police Force—a very great tribute indeed. When one reads the latest report of the Commissioner and sees the roll of honour one realizes the dangers they have to face and the sacrifices they have to make in the course of their duty. According to the roll of honour five Whites lost their lives during the year under review plus a number of non-Whites. They lost their lives in the service of the State. I wonder whether we should not look after these people better than we do. If a policeman is injured on duty to the extent that he is unable to carry on with his normal work, perhaps laid up for life or he is unfit for any other type of work, all he gets is a very small pension under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Surely, we should make better provision for these people. They, after all, sacrifice themselves in the course of their duties of looking after us and so we should look after them. I should also like to pay tribute to those members of the Police Force mentioned in despatches and who received medals. I think it would be wrong of us if we did not take note of this in this House and recognize their services to the State. Tributes have already been made to the police reserve. According to the latest report this force already stands at 17.450. Here too there has been a sacrifice of life. We have had the case where two gentlemen who belonged to the reserve were murdered. I am pleased to note that the police reserve are receiving better training. I personally should like to see them in a uniform of some type or other when they go out on their duties. All over the world there is an increase in crime. We as laymen try to make suggestions to meet the situation and although we are not experts I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will take note of the suggestions we are putting forward. We have a multi-racial society in this country and this fact perhaps presents us with a problem more difficult than anywhere else in the world. We do not only have to worry about terrorists but also about increased social crimes. The Deputy Minister has adopted a policy of streamlining the service by closing down redundant police stations. I do not necessarily disagree but I think the point made by the hon. member for South Coast in this connection is worth considering.

We now come to the question of how we police our cities. We have a system of patrol vans and policemen on the beat. However, it is very seldom that you see a policeman on the beat. We should have many more constables on the beat. What is more, we should have our white constables accompanied by Bantu or Coloured constables, seeing the nature of our multi-racial society. I think it is wrong for us to send an individual on beat on his own, especially where he has perhaps to deal with very dangerous criminals, people who like to use a knife and a gun on the slightest pretext. Consequently I think we should recruit many more Coloured and Bantu constables. When we come to consider the strength of our Police Force we have of necessity to look at the establishment. When we look at the establishment for white policemen we see that they are short of 1,267—that is the number necessary to bring the establishment up to strength. I think it is wrong to regard recruits as part of the establishment because they are not fully trained units. I have in mind persons training at the college and at headquarters. In order to see what our effective force is we should not include these recruits. According to this report there are at present 3,732 units being trained. In addition to that we should not forget the drainage—that is, units on leave, who are sick, those who are away on courses or moving about on special assignments. From enquiries I have made and figures I have been able to collect this can amount to as much as one-third of the total effective force. [Time expired.]

After the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) has pointed out to the hon. member for Pinelands, the hon. member for Musgrave and other members what it is like in a United Party controlled city, I want to refer to a National Party controlled Bantu township which is going to be very pleased about a report in Die Vaderland. dealing with the introduction of police reservists. I agree with the hon. member for Pinelands that this is a step in the right direction especially as far as the home guard divisions which have been established in the various Bantu townships are concerned, units which although they have operated very effectively over the past number of years, have not always had the necessary powers and consequently have always run the risk of finding themselves in court on charges of assault, etc., if they were somewhat harsh in their operations. Now they are going to be under the strict control of an officer. I now foresee these home guard units—at any rate those which are acceptable—being assimilated, as they are, into the division of reservists. I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister as well as the Commissioner of Police and his staff on this step in the right direction.

Now there is a little matter which I should like to rectify. I am referring to a question put by the hon. member for Houghton in this House on 17th March. She put that question in consequence of a report in the Sunday Times of 10th March, a report in which a person from Potchefstroom allegedly complained about the conditions prevailing in the police cells at Potchefstroom. That report created the impression that particularly critical conditions were prevailing there. Immediately afterwards the hon. member for Houghton placed a question on the Order Paper. The hon. the Deputy Minister replied that there was some technical fault with the toilet cistern but that that had been repaired in the meantime. What is interesting is that shortly afterwards a report was published in the newspaper in circulation in that area, one dealing with a statement by two persons who were being detained in those police cells at that very time.

The report reads that the two persons concerned, Messrs. Verster and Bezuidenhout, voluntarily approached the Potchefstroom Herald and handed over the following signed statement to the newspaper (translation)—

1. (1) all the police officials with whom we came into contact treated us strictly but courteously and correctly at all times;
2. (2) the cells in which we were detained looked like new. The walls, floors and ceilings were clean. There was no question of the mixing of races;
3. (3) each cell had a wash basin and flush latrine and in addition each section had a shower and flush latrine. Every day the cells were cleaned by convicts under the supervision of a sergeant;
4. (4) each cell contained as many sleeping mats and blankets as could be used. The bedding was in a good condition and clean;
5. (5) the food was good and plentiful— better than most people can afford for their families. Every day three meals were regularly supplied from a cafe. The necessary cutlery was provided and was handed over by two young constables. Sandwiches were always wrapped and serviettes were always provided. Even dessert and fruit were served.

You should go and spend your holidays there.

But, as the hon. member for Durban (North) quite rightly said, police cells are not hotel rooms of course. This particular building at Potchefstroom was only completed one year ago. It is a neat, modern, well-appointed …

How many stars?

I think we may say it qualifies for about four stars. In any event, I think it will be a good thing if the hon. member were to make some enquiries in future before reacting to this kind of report in the Sunday Times. We have become accustomed to the Sunday Times publishing very prominently what a person has to say as soon as he states that he is a Nationalist and criticizes the Government. Subsequent to that we may expect a question in this House.

But the matter I really want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister concerns the medical fund of the police. This fund was established by Act No. 64 of 1964. It was laid down that all members who join the Police Force as from the date of commencement of that Act automatically become members of the fund and that members who retire after 30th November, 1965, and who used to be members of the fund, may remain members if they pay certain contributions. In addition it provides that members who retired on pension or were medically discharged between 1st January, 1964, and 1st December, 1965, may also remain members of the fund under certain circumstances. That also applies to widows, dependants and certain other persons provided that they meet the requirements in regard to that period and pay in the amounts required by the fund. Unfortunately that creates the impression that certain members of the fund are being discriminated against. A person who retired on 31st December, 1963 for example, cannot remain a member of that fund whereas a person who retired subsequent to 1st January, 1964, may remain a member of the fund provided that he pays in the difference within a period of 90 days in order to make up a period of membership of ten years. On the other hand, other members who join the force on a later date automatically become members of the fund. We have received a number of enquiries in this regard and that is why I am raising this matter here. Certain retired policemen are under the impression that they are being discriminated against. Consequently I shall be pleased if the hon. the Deputy Minister will rectify this matter. The position is that if a police official retires but is reemployed temporarily he once more has full medical coverage. While he is in service on a permanent basis, his medical benefits form part of his conditions of service. From this it now appears that they do not form part of his conditions of service and I shall be pleased if this matter can be rectified. The question is also being asked why this date was fixed as being 1st January, 1964. Is it not possible to fix it at an earlier date, say ten years earlier, in order to make provision for persons who retired during that time? Most of the retired persons as well as the widows of deceased retired persons will then also be covered by this medical scheme. The question is also being asked whether it is not possible to include everyone under this provision of ten years in order that the member who retired on 31st December, 1963, can also enjoy these medical benefits if he pays in his contribution for ten vears. I shall appreciate it very much if the Deputy Minister can reply to these questions.

Mr. Chairman, a few years ago in this House I raised the question of the salary scales of Coloured constables. At that time the commencing salary of a Coloured constable was R30 per month. I want to express my appreciation to the then Minister of Justice who immediately replied to my plea and for the fact that at present the commencing salary of a Coloured constable is R48 per month with an annual increase of R3.05 per month. The commencing salary of a matriculant is R60 per month and his increases are R5 per month per annum. From this amount deductions in respect of various items have to be made. It is quite clear that there is a shortage of hundreds of Coloured policemen at the present time. Unfortunately the salary scales are still inadequate. Likely recruits enter other services where they receive higher salaries. There is also another anomaly. The white constable enjoys a free medical service, also for his family, whereas in the case of the Coloured constable only he, and not also his family, has a free medical service. I know of a Coloured constable who has a period of service of nearly 20 years and his salary is only R106 per month. On the other hand a white constable with 10 years’ service receives R190 per month.

There is also another aspect about which I do not feel happy and that is the quality of the training which the Coloured constable receives. We cannot do anything else but speak highly of the training which our white constables receive at the Police College. On the other hand, the training of Coloured constables is of a very low quality. Just to mention one example: Handbooks are issued to whites. They receive, for example, “Standing Orders, Parts I and II, Hints in Connection with Crime, Police Regulations, Standing Orders (Supplies), Standing Orders (Financial),” etc. In the days when General Brink was Commissioner of Police, Coloured constables also received certain handbooks but they have been withdrawn since and now they have no handbooks.

Another aspect to which I should like to draw attention, is the ranks of our Coloured police. White police have the ranks of constable, sergeant and then chief constable, followed by officer ranks. Coloured police have the ranks of Coloured constable, then Coloured sergeant, then senior sergeant, then chief sergeant and the highest rank is chief sergeant, special grade. But he still remains a sergeant. I feel that this matter has to be investigated and that other designations of rank have to be created for the Coloured police.

Another aspect about which Coloured policemen feel aggrieved is their uniforms. At the time when the white constables received new uniforms the old “open” uniforms of the whites were made available to the Coloured police. Subsequent to that they have had to revert to the uniform which is closed right up to the neck. I know of cases where Coloured police buy uniforms from the traffic police in order to look neater. Consequently I feel that a change definitely has to be made as far as the uniforms of Coloured police are concerned. The Coloured police also feel that they want a different uniform to that worn by the Bantu police.

Another aspect is that Coloured wardens in the prison service have the same type of uniform as that of the whites, namely the “open” jacket with a cap which matches properly. But the Coloured policemen wear a uniform dating from the thirties and an ugly helmet which is uncomfortable, particularly for people who patrol the streets in cars and patrol vehicles.

The shortage of 500 men which, according to my information, exists in the police service can only be eliminated if improvements are made as regards conditions of service and salaries. It is essential to enlist those recruits. In this morning’s newspaper there is a report of a complex of five Coloured townships which are going to be established on the Cape Flats. But the position at present is that police protection in the townships already in existence is totally inadequate. That is the result of a shortage of staff in the force. The system of patrolling streets in police vans does not operate properly. Once a van has passed through Bonteheuwel, for example, all the thugs who lie in wait and rob people know that it will not put in another appearance for a few hours. The best protection is the policeman on foot who may crop up at any place or even a policeman who patrols the streets on his bicycle. I want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to give his serious attention to this problem. I want to suggest—I do not know whether I will be ruled out of order—that it might perhaps be better if the salaries of police were not dealt with by the Public Service Commission but that the Department itself should deal with that aspect and discuss it with the Treasury.

Order! The hon. member may not advocate changes in legislation now.

In that case, Mr. Chairman, I think I am out of order. …

If the hon. member is aware of that he should not discuss such matters.

I want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister. I know that as far as the officers in the Police Force are concerned, they are fully aware of this problem of a shortage and they realize that they are being handicapped in the execution of their duties as a result of this shortage. Consequently I ask him to give his serious attention to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister is still keeping the Police Force under his personal supervision is evidence of the high priority given to our Police Force in the administration of the State. The task of the police is so important that it can hardly be underestimated. One cannot imagine South Africa, being a well-ordered State, functioning without the protection of the S.A.P. Here in South Africa the police do not do police work only but in addition they are, for all practical purposes, the first line of defence in times of peace. Their lives are in constant danger in the execution of their duties and every young man who joins the force at present realizes full well that he is going to endanger his life when he becomes a member of the force. They are doing so for the sake of the security of the people of South Africa and they are prepared to make that sacrifice.

I now want to make a few quotations from the latest report of the Commissioner of Police. We notice that no less than 21 members of the force lost their lives in the execution of their duties during the year under review. In considering those figures every good South African must come under the impression of what the Force is doing for us. Their task is not only to act as the first line of defence in times of peace but they are also the protectors of our authority. They are the protectors of individuals, including the hon. member for Houghton, and they are also the protectors of the law and our property. Their primary task is to see to it that an orderly and law-abiding community can live together. Can we imagine what the position in South Africa would have been without the S.A.P.?

Order! It seems to me the hon. member is reading his speech.

No, Sir. I shall turn my notes the other way around or better still, I shall put them down.

Do so then. The hon. member may proceed.

What is our reaction to all these things the S.A.P. is doing for us? Do we support them in this tremendous task which they have or are we always prepared to find fault with what they are doing? Are we making enquiries all over—we will say this to the credit of the hon. member for Houghton that she is very conscientious in this regard—to see whether we cannot dig up something concerning action taken by the force to hurl across the floor of this House? With reference to police service, it is striking that in the report of the Commissioner—surely I may quote from that. Mr. Chairman— reference is made to 1.799 members of the force who were mentioned in dispatches and awards. That says a very great deal.

A next point I want to deal with is the following. The establishment of the force is given as being between 28,000 and 30,000 and many ex-members of the force are reappointed. We are very pleased to see that salary scales have been changed so as to enable them to receive better remuneration for the services they are now rendering. They are experienced men and I believe that they can make a major contribution to combating crime.

Another aspect which I should like to bring to the attention of the entire nation of South Africa is the following. We are living in a time in which many people are inclined to believe that we should no longer adhere to old values but that such things as “happenings” and other spectacles which are foreign to the nation and which are now being introduced into the country should be accepted. According to some people crime also has a certain value—when a person is a criminal he deserves every respect because then he is a hero. Therefore I want to speak of something which contributes such a great deal to crime in our country, something which contributes to a large extent to the degeneration of our youth and that is the use of drugs. Here I must refer to dagga. I shall not refer to the report of the Commissioner again. Here I want to place emphasis—and also express my appreciation to the people who do the work—on the tremendous task which the S.A.P. is undertaking in combating the evil of dagga. I know the northern and north-eastern parts of the Transvaal: I know of the mighty Drakensberg range which runs through those areas where such tremendous quantities of dagga are being grown. It virtually is a super-human task to force one’s way through that impenetrable undergrowth and all those ravines in order to trace and take steps against dagga-growers. If we consider the tremendous services the S.A.P. has already rendered there in this regard, the only thing I can do is to express our appreciation to the S.A.P.

Now it is so that when we express our appreciation and gratitude for services which are being rendered, the Opposition always holds that against us and maintains that we are doing so because we do not have anything else to say. According to them we suffer from a lack of knowledge on the subject and that it is on that account that we proceed to give expression to our thanks and gratitude. That is far from true. We are doing so from the bottom of our hearts because the services which are being rendered simply cannot be underestimated.

Now I should like to bring the following matter to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. Shortly after the Anglo-Boer War certain out-stations were established and manned by the old S.A.C. Many of those old stations are still in existence. I wonder whether the Minister will not give consideration to moving some of those old stations to other places—I mention, inter alia, one in Sekukuniland, an old station which I think is called Derde Gelid. Many of those stations have served their purpose and for many years the people of Burgersfort and vicinity have been asking for that station to be moved there. In this area there is a large concentration of Whites and non-Whites, all the major roads cross there, and consequently it has been requested that the police station be moved to Burgersfort, where it will be able to render better service to the community and where the police officials will also have the advantage of being close to schools and other institutions. There are also other stations like this. We ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this matter.

Another matter on which I should like to express a few ideas is the establishment of the force. As I said earlier on, the establishment is between 28,000 and 30,000. I feel that under present circumstances we cannot cut down any more or effect larger savings on expenditure in that regard. We are prepared to spend R250 million on the defence of South Africa in the military sphere. I believe it to be imperative to extend our Police Force in proportion to the increase in the population, in proportion to the entry into South Africa of various people from countries abroad and also in view of the fact that offences, as I said a short while ago, have virtually come to be regarded as acts of heroism lately. Consequently I feel that we should rather extend, instead of decrease, our Police Force from year to year. It is true that crime has not shown such a tremendous increase during certain years but we have to accept that crime will always continue to show an increase from time to time. Consequently I request the Minister in determining the establishment of the S.A.P., to give consideration rather to increasing than decreasing that establishment.

I want to conclude by expressing my appreciation for the efficient and unselfish way in which the entire Police Force—all officers and other ranks—has acquitted itself of its difficult task. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in regard to a matter which particularly affects us in the Transvaal and on the Witwatersrand, and that is the extremely high incidence of crime in that area, something which is alarming to both the white and non-white population in that area. If we examine the figures we note that nearly 1,000 murder cases alone occur in Johannesburg within a year’s time. If the same percentage of convictions which applies to the rest of the country applies to that area, only 20 per cent of that number of 1,000 has been arrested and given their due punishment. Consequently, I say that the state of affairs in that area is alarming. We admit that the police are doing their best, that they are taking new steps, and that much more is being done at present than was done in previous years, but one has to look at the results and see whether the really large decrease we should like to see has been effected before giving one’s verdiot in this regard. What I have in mind is that even a person like the chief of the Meadowland police has made the statement: “It is impossible to imagine how much stabbing goes on—you have to see it to believe it.” I have figures here in regard to crime in Johannesburg. Unfortunately they are not the latest figures and perhaps the hon. the Minister can furnish us with those. These are the figures which I have at my disposal. They indicate that, in the course of a single year, there were no less than 8.144 cases of ordinary assault within the municipal area of Johannesburg. There were 7,281 cases of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. There were also 25,749 cases of theft during the period of 12 months in the Johannesburg municipal area alone. If one makes an analysis of these figures one finds that one case of theft is discovered and reported every 20 minutes in Johannesburg. These cases range from the snatching of a handbag to serious cases involving thousands and tens of thousands of rand. What is also alarming is that many cases of theft are not even reported. I am not defending the public in this regard, but it is a fact that cases of theft often occur which the public do not consider worth while reporting, because they think they would involve too much trouble and that, in addition, it would be impossible to trace the culprits. I think that is, indeed, a serious state of affairs. I do not want to prescribe to the Minister what steps have to be taken. I know he realizes the magnitude of the problem. Many proposals have already been made in regard to this matter. The proposals I want to suggest now are not necessarily the best, but I nevertheless want to suggest them.

We know, and criminologists tell us, that a stable population shows less of an inclination towards crime, and any steps which the Government is able to take, within the framework of its policy or by changing its policy, for promoting matters such as family life, pride of possession of own property, etc., will decrease the high incidence of crime on the Rand.

We know what shortage there really is of well-paid and trained policemen, also on the Rand. It may be so that it is being said that the police now virtually is at full strength, but I cannot accept that. I am sure that many more are required and that it would be possible to find many more if conditions of service are satisfactory. I am pleased to learn that Bantu are now also going Ito be used as police reservists. I am sure that that will improve the situation. But again, as I have said, the effectiveness of the measures can only be judged on the figures, and I certainly hope that these figures will be batter in the future. Perhaps there are too many cases of Bantu being imprisoned for minor offences with the result that they have come to regard imprisonment as something trivial. As a matter of fact, at present there must be very few residents of Soweto who have not seen the inside of a prison.

Earlier this year we had legislation in respect of (training camps for Coloureds, and at that time it was mentioned that it had been United Parity policy for a long time that there also ought to be training for the Natives as far as potential young idlers were concerned. If the Government has any ideas or has made any progress in regard to that matter I shall be pleased to hear from the hon. the Minister in that regard.

As I have already said, the state of affairs on the Rand is serious and I have often wondered whether the time has not arrived for the appointment of a commission of inquiry into the entire matter of crime on the Witwatersrand. There are many persons and bodies who are knowledgeable and who are able to render assistance in this regard. The commission may be representative of, for example, the police, the Department of Justice, the Prison Service, the City Council, the Bantu authorities in Soweto itself, criminologists, sociologists, Lawyers, etc. To my mind such a commission will be able to meet without any prejudice, they will be able to exchange ideas and possibly convey ideas to the Minister. I think the time has really arrived for this kind of attention to be given to this major problem, one which I know is also near to the heart of the hon. the Minister.

Before resuming my seat, I should like to raise another matter, one which the hon. member for Potchefstroom also raised, and that is the conditions of service of the police. We know that the ordinary member of the force has the same problems as we ordinary people have in regard to cost of living, high prices, rentals, etc. Unfortunately he is placed in an even more unfavourable position by two facts. The first is the danger which his work involves and the second is that he, unlike public servants, for example, does not have his own Staff association—there are, for example, the Association of Public Servants and the various Post Office Associations—through whose agency he can operate and communicate with the Government. I do not regard it as being in the least reprehensible, but rather as being desirable, that when a person feels that certain matters have to be brought to the attention of the Minister on a countrywide basis, there ought to be responsible members of the force who may communicate with us, as Members of Parliament, to request us to raise certain matters. What I am going to raise now comes from a responsible person in the force, and he speaks on behalf of many people. Obviously I shall not reveal his name. If there is any error in what I am now going to repeat to the Minister—and what I am now going to repeat to him is what has been told to me— I want to give him the assurance that such error is bound to be mine and not that of the person concerned. He has asked me to repeat the following points, and I do so gladly.

The first point relates to salary scales. The salaries of constables, sergeants, warrant officers and lieutenants have been adjusted on the same scale with a maximum notch of R3,500, which is reached in stages after approximately 25 years. Annual increases of R120 per annum are given—i.e., R10 per month. This is, in fact, an improvement of what the position was before, but in spite of that, that is not adequate. As far as allowances are concerned, allowances are paid to some members and not to other members, as the hon. the Minister also knows. Some members on the same salary notch receive allowances, whereas others do not. I have been told that in many instances no reasons are given to members why they do not receive the allowances.

It has also been alleged that special constables, in addition to their pensions, are paid the amount of R3,000 per annum which, as a rule, exceeds the amount paid to the member of the force under whose command they serve. Special constables are also often given temporary ranks which give them command over members with permanent ranks. That causes a great deal of dissatisfaction which has an adverse effect on discipline and the execution of duties. As far as promotions are concerned, I have been asked to repeat that in the Prison Service, for example, promotions are made without any examinations being written, whereas members of the S.A. Police do have to write an examination in which they have to pass in six subjects at the same time. Candidates for promotion from constable to sergeant have to obtain 40 per cent in order to pass and sergeants and warrant officers have to achieve 50 per cent per subject in order to pass. Members cannot rewrite any subject in which they have failed, as is the case in ordinary examinations —they have to write the entire next examination.

I do not know whether these facts are correct—this is how I repeat them to the hon. the Minister. I am, of course, doing so in good faith. I have been informed, as far as disciplinary measures are concerned, that a fine not exceeding RIO may be imposed on members tried by a departmental court in terms of the regulations. However, such a conviction remains on a member’s record for a period of five years and is always taken into consideration if a member wishes to qualify himself in any direction in the force and also in respect of annual salary increases, examinations for promotion, etc. The offences with which members are charged are usually damage or loss of property, vehicles, injury to themselves through negligence, etc. There are also complaints in regard to housing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to add at the particular request of certain of my constituents to the congratulations that have already been extended to the members of the police for the performance of their duties, and I want particularly to refer to those who have been serving in the Green Point-Sea Point area. There have been a number of occasions on which those police have gone well outside their normal duties and their normal responsibilities in connection with certain sea rescues, and the residents and people in that area would like the hon. the Minister and the Commissioner to know how much that action is appreciated. In due course the actions of some of them have been investigated and these men will be given recognition through the South African Red Cross Society for some of the work which has been performed in that connection. They are also faced with another great difficulty in that area, something which has nothing to do with race questions or the policies of the parties. I am referring to the existence of a heavily occupied residential area in which by the nature of things a number of non-Whites are employed as domestic servants by hotels and at residences, for the maintenance of flats, and so on, and for whom there are no recreational facilities or recreational areas. I am sure that it is a problem which has to be solved, and solved very soon, to prevent unnecessary loitering in the streets in those areas. One cannot blame these people—they are employed there, they are legitimately employed, they are Cape Coloured people in the main, but there are no facilities or recreational areas for them in that particular part of the Peninsula. It is a matter which, I am sure, will receive the attention of the police, but I mention it particularly now because I believe it is becoming urgent.

I want to move from that to another matter, and that is that one finds that the strength of the force, according to the Commissioner’s report, in the ratio of so many thousand per population is quite normal. I believe that it is now 1.60 as against the highest in 1958 of 1.90 per thousand. There is some apprehension that the old and secure foot patrols are being replaced by mobile patrols to a greater extent than possibly should be done for the purposes of security. I raise this matter because of the recent incident involving a stabbing in the centre of the city, and I raise it also because there are areas such as Queen Victoria Street, an area where there is access to the public gardens and open places where there seems to be an unnecessary amount of loitering. Sir, loitering will not be stopped by periodical visits by police vans. These people disappear into the darkness and as soon as the van has gone past they come back and loiter in the streets. I think it would be reassuring to the public to know that there is no intention to reduce the foot patrols which are necessary in certain residential areas and particularly in some parts of the city of Cape Town. Sir, one realizes that stabbings are going on. I am not suggesting that they are all occurring in public streets. I want to quote, for instance, from a report for last year which has just been released from the Groote Schuur Hospital—

I quote that, Sir, because one realizes that there is a social aspect involved here as well as the purely criminal aspect. I wonder whether too much time of the police is not being absorbed in dealing with matters which might be dealt with by another authority, and I refer particularly to motor accidents and offences under the motoring laws. One finds, for instance, in the Commissioner’s report—I am dealing purely with prosecutions; one can imagine how many investigations there were—(that there were 49,135 prosecutions for defective vehicles, 18,590 prosecutions for having no driver’s licence and 263,316 prosecutions for other traffic offences. I am aware and I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister is aware of the fact that a large amount of this work has now been taken over by the provincial traffic inspectors. One knows what happens in the cities when there is a collision on one of our freeways. One finds that police officials are brought in to take measurements and to prepare plans. I also know from my private practice what amount of time and energy must be spent in preparing plans ad nauseam of every accident in which the slightest amount of damage might have been done by one vehicle to another or in which a person might have been slightly injured. I would like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether anything is being done to relieve the Police Force more and more of the responsibility of investigating these accidents and passing it over more and more to the traffic police in the cities. This would relieve the police of a great deal of time-absorbing work which is perhaps responsible for the fact that they are not always available for other duties. There should be no great difficulty in making the necessary financial adjustment as between the police and the city councils.

Finally I want to draw attention to the incidence of accidents in which police vehicles are concerned. It appears from page 13 of the report that during the year under review police vehicles were involved in 2,175 road accidents, that is to say, one accident for every 36,000 miles travelled in the Republic of South Africa. On the Witwatersrand there were 735 road accidents, one for every 24,000 miles travelled. One appreciates that the drivers of police vans may have to take risks and drive at a fast speed because of the nature of their duties. There is no means in this report of determining how many of these accidents were due to negligence on the part of these drivers. I think there again the Commissioner might be able, in reporting in future, to indicate to what extent these accidents were caused by negligence on the part of police drivers, or whether the accidents were due to the nature of the work that had to be done by the police. I raise this matter because I think it is of interest. In the absence of information of this kind it might appear that these vehicles are not driven with due care, whereas the accidents might well be excusable because of the circumstances in which they took place.

I should like to continue replying to the questions that have been put to me, and commenting on the matters which have been raised here. Right at the outset I should like to express my appreciation for the objective way in which the problems of the police have been discussed by hon. members on both sides of the House. Before I proceed to deal with the questions that have been raised here, I feel it is my duty towards the police to deal briefly with another matter, and that is an incident which was recently reported in the Cape Town newspapers. I am quite surprised that nothing has been said in this connection in the course of this debate. On 30th March, 1967, a report appeared in The Cape Times under the headline: “Tennis Fans Ejected by Police.” On social occasions I have been personally attacked because of the action of the police as represented in this report.

There was an explanation in the newspaper the next day.

Yes, but that was not the end of the matter. I think we have a duty to the police to state the true facts with regard to this incident. The report reads, inter alia—

Mr. Chairman, a very serious reflection was cast on the police here, and I think it is only fair that the Committee should be presented with the true facts. Somewhat later, on the 7th of this month, no less a person than Dr. Duminy wrote a letter to the newspaper with reference to the report which had appeared in The Cape Times. I have the greatest respect for Dr. Duminy, but I am surprised that a man like him should write a letter to the newspaper without having enquired into the facts of the matter. In his letter he says—

He then describes the whole matter, but I just want to read the last paragraph—

The facts of the matter were that Coloureds could not be admitted to this event and that it was subsequently discovered by one of the executive committee members of the Western Province Tennis Association that Coloureds had in fact been admitted. He then asked the police who were present to go and speak to the Coloureds and to tell them that they were not entitled to be there, and that they should go to the gate to have their money refunded.

The Coloureds were then approached by the police officer concerned. There were two groups of Coloureds sitting there, one group separately, and another group among the Whites He whispered to them that they were not supposed to be there, and asked them to be so kind as to leave the grounds. He even went as far as saying to them: “Do not go now; wait until the end of the set. I shall then meet you at the gate and see to it that your money is refunded to you.” Mr. Chairman, this is what happened, but what did the newspaper do which published this report to the detriment of the Police Force? It went and listened to one of the persons who was apparently more dissatisfied than the rest, because obviously nothing in particular had happened at the time of the incident. They went and listened to her story and without ascertaining what the facts were, they published this report in the newspaper. The facts I have now furnished to the Committee are substantiated by a statement by a member of the executive committee, and it is my duty to present them to the Committee. He said—

He is therefore a most responsible man—

Further on in his statement he says—

Then, later on, he says—

Apparently this was the one who gave the account to the newspaper—

I do not want to say any more about this matter. We are aware of the fact that the way the police handle incidents where the races may come into conflict is most important. On occasion I have discussed this personally with the Commissioner of Police, and we make every attempt to provide the necessary guidance to the police in order that cases such as these, where there may be dissatisfaction or where ill-feelings may perhaps be aroused, may be dealt with in the most tactful manner. It is disappointing that there is so frequently a deliberate attempt to vilify the police in cases of this nature, where it is the task of the police to see to it that legislation is enforced. It is mostly negative legislation, legislation which people do not like, but it is the task of the police to see to it that that legislation, which is approved in this House by legally elected members of Parliament, is enforced.

J wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree that Dr. Duminy was not objecting to the police so much as to the fact that there were no facilities for the Coloureds?

I do not want to argue that point with the hon. member: that may be true. But as I understand the report it would appear to me. particularly as the letter was written with reference to complaint Did against the police, as though he was of the opinion that the report which had appeared in the newspaper was correct. All I want to do here is to present the true state of affairs to the Committee and at the same time remove the erroneous impression which has been to created in respect of the police officer concerned.

The real trouble is the laws they have to carry out.

I just want to make a few general observations with regard to the combating of crime, because so many of the members, for example the hon. member who spoke last, the hon. member for Musgrave. and also the hon. member for Outeniqua and others, expressed the opinion that we should go back to foot patrols, “the Bobby on the beat”. I want to say right at the outset that this is very difficult to carry out under modern conditions, particularly also because our urban areas have expanded so tremendously during the past few years. There were also references to the closing of police stations. We started discussing that last year. I may mention that in the Johannesburg complex 151 members of the force who previously performed office duty were released for outside duties. This is the attempt by the police to make people who would otherwise be sitting in an office available for street duty. In the meantime, as I said last night, quite a few more ladies have been appointed in order that more policemen may be assigned to active duties. Lately an experiment has been in progress with policemen who patrol on light motor-cycles. At this stage we cannot say whether or not this is successful, but I should like to say that an experiment with motor-cycles is being carried out because a person on a suitable light motor-cycle has a better view and can move much more easily in traffic. Because we do not have an adequate number of police to introduce the old foot patrol service, which has actually become an obsolete method, we want to try this new method to see whether it will not be more effective for combating crime. Special crime fighting units have, of course, also been established. to which the hon. member for Houghton apparently objects and on which she made an attack, but I should like to say to her and to the House that the law-abiding citizen of the country has nothing to fear. These raids— the word the hon. member for Houghton is so fond of using—or these special operations of the police, or these crime-fighting units, need not be feared by the law-abiding citizen. It is only the vagrant, who is usually the culprit, who is rounded up by this police action.

I want to come back Ito an observation made yesterday by the hon. member for Transkei. Amongst other things he spoke of the foot patrol which should rather be introduced, and then he asked me a question to which I did not reply yesterday. It was whether we received enough applications from Bantu who want to join the Police Force. My reply is that we get as many as we can train. The hon. members for Boland and Outeniqua spoke about the Coloureds. As far as Coloured recruits are concerned, we do not get as many as we can train. This may be due to other factors. I shall discuss them later.

Yesterday the hon. member for Houghton spoke about the “massive raids”. She prefers to call it a “raid,” because it is apparently a more unpopular description of the actions of the police, and by using it she may be able to present the actions of the police in a less favourable light. But they are not always “raids”. They are large-scale operations carried out by the police when they have information that there is the possibility of crime in certain areas. Then special operations are carried out to combat the crime and, inter alia, also to round up the vagrants who are usually the cause of this problem. But the hon. member went further and said that it was usually “petty offences” which we tracked down by these operations, and later she spoke about “trespassing” and said that such unnecessary action was taken against “trespassing”. She then mentioned her own case and said—

I have had the experience in my own home that there has been a police raid and Africans, quite peacefully engaged in conversation with my own servant in the servant’s quarters, have been arrested for trespass.

Not my own servants.

I should like to read it again, and the hon. member may correct it if it is wrong—

I would have spared the hon. member the embarrassment of having the circumstances surrounding this case presented to the House, but because she has made an allegation against the police I have no choice but to reveal all the facts. The case to which she referred in her speech was investigated by us and we called for a statement on it. I should like to read the statement by the warrant officer to you, Sir, then you yourself may judge whether what took place there was simply an unnecessary imposition on those people’s privacy, where they were so innocently engaged in conversation, or what it was. The statement reads as follows. It is rather long, but I am afraid I shall just have to read it (translation)—

I left out a portion just now because it did not form part of the section on the stolen goods. I want to read that as well.

I was referring to another occasion.

It was on the same occasion, during the same search—

And then he furnishes the names of all the Bantu men who were found there, their offences and the sentences they received. [Interjection.] The hon. member got up here and objected to the operations carried out by the police to combat crime, and she referred specially to her case. I leave it to the Committee to decide whether or not these operations are necessary. Furthermore, I should like to tell this Committee that as a result of these operations to which the hon. member objects, the Police received, inter alia, the following letters from non-Whites. The first letter reads as follows—-

These are the actions by the Police to which the hon. member objects. Here is a second letter—

The hon. member does not want this to be done. She objects to this. All I am trying to prove is that it is necessary. [Interjections.]

Order!

The third letter states: “At the outset let me express my warmest congratulations on the good work that you are doing. The public are unanimously behind you, your organization and the brave men in it.”

What are you trying to prove?

I am just giving some examples of appreciation of the police action to which the hon. member objected last night here in The House. [Interjections.] I want to conclude with her. Yesterday she also spoke about “spot fines” which are supposedly imposed by us. The Police do not impose any “spot fines”. Traffic officers may impose spot fines, but not the Police. As far as the Police are concerned, admissions of guilt are taken from time to time, of which I am unfortunately not able to give her the details. She asked for them yesterday, but there is no question of spot fines being imposed by the Police.

Last night the hon. member for South Coast, in particular, pleaded that better housing should be provided for the Police. There is no need for the hon. member to convert me to such an effort, because we are very much aware of the fact that the housing leaves much to be desired and that we have a considerable leeway to make up. The Police Force is making an attempt to provide 50 per cent housing for its staff. Now I must say that in previous years it was much easier, of course. Then housing in South Africa was not the major problem it is at present. There is a vast housing shortage at present, as you will know, which did not exist previously. If the Police were sent to a particular place, they could get a rented house fairly easily. That is no longer the case at present, and we are indeed experiencing problems in that connection. The effort being made by the Police is to provide 50 per cent housing. In recent times a special effort has been made to expedite the programme for the building and provision of houses for the Police Force, but as you know, it has once again been hampered during recent years as a result of a capital shortage on the one hand and of the inflationary conditions, on the other hand, which will be aggravated by the precipitate implementation of this policy to provide housing. I just want to express my appreciation to members who have raised this matter—it was also raised by the hon. member for Aliwal. We shall plead with the other Ministers as hard as we can for that effort to provide 50 per cent housing.

The hon. member for South Coast told me last night—I must mention this—that it would not be possible for him to be present to-day. He also mentioned the closing of police stations. Hon. members are aware of the fact that we are closing down stations in the urban complexes, but wherever possible we do not do that in the rural complexes.

The hon. member for Aliwal spoke about the stock-thefts. I think the hon. member for Transkei also referred to that. I want to tell you that we are thoroughly aware of the problems experienced in connection with the stock thefts which are taking place, particularly on the borders of Lesotho, and that every attempt is made to curb them. The hon. member for Aliwal asked for permanent helicopters. At the moment we do not have permanent helicopters for combating stock-thefts on the borders. They operate from Bloemfontein, but I just want to mention that a helicopter is not really as effective a means of combating stock-theft in that region as is generally thought. Many of the stock thefts take place at night, when helicopters cannot operate and when there is in any event no visibility. It is not so easy to track something. A helicopter is very noisy, they see it from afar, and so forth. Be that as it may, every possible attempt is being made through border patrols, wherever possible, through providing dogs and vehicles equipped with two-way radio sets, etc. The police are in any event doing everything possible to combat this problem, which is indeed a major problem. Now I just want to tell you that there are certain circumstances, particularly on that border to which the hon. member for Aliwal referred, which make matters very difficult for the police. Hon. members should take note of that. In the first place it is the very mountainous ground, frequently with very difficult weather conditions, which makes their work difficult. In the second place there are the hostile Bantu who are encountered from time to time and the fact that the police are not authorized to enter Lesotho territory to go and fetch and pursue the offenders there, and the fact that there is as yet no extradition agreement between Lesotho and South Africa, which the hon. member mentioned. During the discussion on his Vote the hon. Prime Minister mentioned that negotiations were in progress at the moment, and we hope that in due course an extradition agreement will be entered into by South Africa and Lesotho, which will make it much easier for us to deal with this problem.

I failed to mention this a moment ago, but horses are of course also used to a large extent in this area. More horses have been bought this year, because the horse is actually a better means of transport to combat offences under those particular circumstances. There is co-operation by the police of Lesotho, and recently they made a large-scale raid there and collected a large number of stock which were presumably stolen, inter alia—I shall just furnish the figures briefly—207 head of cattle, 760 sheep, 309 goats, 23 donkeys and 17 horses. In that respect we enjoyed the cooperation of the Lesotho Police. Many of the stock I have just mentioned have in fact been identified, and I just want to express the hope that in due course we shall meet the problem even more effectively. In this regard I may also say that it is my intention to pay a personal visit to that area, along with the Commissioner, perhaps in a matter of three weeks’ time, and to see whether any means may be employed on our part to meet the problem more effectively.

As regards the hon. member for Musgrave,

1 think I have replied to a large extent to the matters he raised with regard to the combating of crime. In particular he referred to a report which appeared in The Natal Mercury in connection with Pinetown and the crime wave prevailing there. In this regard I just want to say—time does not allow me to deal with these matters in detail—that it is in fact a local problem. It is a problem existing there during the transition period, while that area is being bought up and transferred to the Department of Bantu Administration. We believe that the problem will shortly be solved. The hon. member for Pine-town is very well informed on the circumstances there. They are local and will in any event not continue.

The hon. member also spoke about the many murder cases which are not solved. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus has already discussed the matter and has pointed out that our percentage as regards tracking down offenders is actually remarkably high. He has actually replied to that problem, and I do not think there is any need for me to deal with it any further. Finally the hon. member commented that we were not attracting enough people to the college as students. There may be some truth in that, but I may definitely state to-day that the image of the police, as a force in which young people are interested and which they are eager to join, is remarkably good. This year we have more students in the college than ever before, namely 2,015. I think that in itself is adequate proof of the fact that the police service is at present not as unattractive as the hon. member would suggest.

The hon. member for Pinelands spoke about the establishment and expressed his concern over what I said last night, that we actually had more people than were provided for. That is correct, but I want to reassure the hon. member that this is not something he need be concerned about. In the first place it is no use our creating new posts if we cannot fill them. We enlist in the Police Force only as many people as we can find who are suitable for it. If we therefore exceed the number of posts provided for, we are allowed to do so until such time as the additional posts are created. It is therefore not actually a problem, and the hon. member may rest assured in this regard.

Do you intend increasing the number of posts?

Yes, certainly. We are already doing so. The hon. member also spoke about crime. In this regard I should like to say something about our reservists. This will also answer the questions of other hon. members. We want to combat crime to a large extent with the aid of reservists. At the moment the reservists are divided into four groups: A, B, C and D. The A group are those who are temporarily in police service and who are remunerated; the B group are those who perform home-guard service from time to time without remuneration; the C group are employees of local businesses and local authorities, while the D group are those who are used in rural areas. At present the A group numbers 5,256; the B group 8,277; the C group 2,969 and the D group 882. Then there are also 25 Coloureds in the A group and 447 in the B group, while there is one Indian in the A group and 280 Indians in the B group. There has been mention here, and there have also been newspaper reports on the matter, of the experiment we are engaged in, namely to train Bantu as reservists. At the moment an experiment is being undertaken with 500 of these reservists, who will serve in the Soweto-Kliptown-Moroka-Orlando-Meadowlands complex. As regards voluntary service by Bantu, Coloureds and Indians as reservists, enquiries are at the moment being made into the desirability of compensating them for part-time service, irrespective of whether or not there is an emergency. The hon. member for Salt River spoke about uniforms for the reservists. He said that he would like to see reservists wear uniforms. Enquiries have been in process for a considerable time into the most suitable uniform for reservists—the pattern, the colour and so forth. For the while it was decided that the uniforms should be the same as ordinary police uniforms. Buying uniforms for them may now be commenced with. In the coming financial year we envisage using R150,000 for this purpose.

The hon. member for Durban (North) said he was concerned about the number of burglaries. Burglary is one of the most difficult crimes to combat. That explains why in terms of percentage we have the poorest record in this respect, as far as solutions are concerned. But attempts are being made to procure the best results in this regard as well.

The hon. member for Boland and the hon. member for Outeniqua spoke about the salary scales for Coloureds in the police service. Salaries of non-White policemen were reviewed in 1964 and in 1965. New adjustments were made on 1st January, 1966. From 1st April, 1966, a new superior rank was introduced, that of Special Grade Chief Sergeant, on a salary scale of R1,500x 60—1,800x 84 —1,998. The hon. member for Boland also spoke about allowances. At the moment a uniform and clothing allowance is paid to non-Whites as follows: The mounted branch, R14 per annum; the foot branch, R13 per annum; the detective branch, R20 per annum; detective allowance in all ranks, R36 per annum. The hon. member said that he did not regard this as adequate. All I can say at this stage is that we shall take note of his views and shall have the matter investigated.

The hon. member for Salt River also spoke about the desirability of having more constables on the streets. He also said that he did not think the students should be counted in with the establishment of trained policemen. We take cognizance of his views. The hon. member for Outeniqua also spoke about uniforms for Coloureds. I want to inform him that we have already resolved on a new uniform for Coloureds. That uniform will have a different cut from the present one. But before the new uniform can be taken into use, the existing supply of old uniforms will first have to be used.

The hon. member for Lydenburg mentioned the moving of a certain police station. I want to tell him that it has been approved. The Derdegelid station is to be moved to Burgersfort. Land has already been acquired at the latter site. All that is still lacking are the necessary funds for the erection of the building. The removing, however, has already been approved.

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the fact that (the police have no trade union. That is true, but every member is given the right, by regulation, to lodge grievances and to submit suggestions. All commanding officers are compelled to forward such grievances and suggestions to headquarters. The hon. member also furnished certain particulars with regard to salaries and allowances. Many of those were not correct, but I would be grateful if the hon. member could rather submit those particulars to me personally.

Finally I come to the hon. member for Green Point. He said that we could not ascertain from the report whether or not the number of accidents which occurred were due to negligence. That is true. I want to point out to the hon. member, however, that where accidents occurred which can be ascribed to negligence, the matter is thoroughly investigated by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. If the hon. member is interested in these, he may therefore consult the report of the Select Committee. He will find all the information there.

My point is that the Departmental Report may create The wrong impression as it stands at present.

Vote put and agreed to.

Progress reported.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

At the request of the Council of the University of Cape Town, the Government has again agreed to introduce the present Bill to amend the University of Cape Town Act, 1959, the previous amendments having been effected in 1962 and 1965 respectively. In future, however, it will be possible for a university to have its amending or consolidating legislation retain the form of a private Bill, if it does not affect the rights or interests of any persons adversely, without incurring expenditure other than the cost of drafting and translating the legislation. This was made possible by the present text of Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills), published by this House in 1966 and adapted by the Other Place in similar terms. It reads: “Unless it is introduced by the Government or Mr. Speaker decides otherwise, every Bill for the particular interest or benefit of any person or persons shall be treated by this House as a private Bill.” If the Bill is not introduced by the Government and use is being made of the above procedure, the legislation remains private and is therefore to retain the form of a private Bill and to be introduced by a private member.

In the 1962 Act introduced by the Government, provision was made for the appointment by the Council, if it so desired, of a Deputy Principal. This was duly done. It has since been found, however, that it is quite impossible for one officer to cope with the multifarious activities associated with that office. Provision is therefore being made by clauses 1, 2, 3 and 6 for the Council, at its discretion, to appoint more than one Deputy Principal.

Clause 3 also provides for the choice by the Board of Governors of the University of Cape Town Foundation of two of its members to serve on the Council of the University. The Foundation is the body established by the Council to collect funds for the university. A number of prominent and influential members of the public, representing industry, commerce and so on, serve on that body on a voluntary basis. They are the people that direct the activities of the Foundation and it is considered desirable that they be kept fully informed of the activities and plans of the university. To this end they should be represented on the Council.

In view of the fact that all but section 7 of the Higher Education Amendment Act, 1946, has been repealed and it is intended ere long to repeal that section too, provision is made by clauses 3 (2) and 4 (c) for the establishment of committees of the Council and the Senate and of joint committees of the Council and the Senate. This was also done in the recent University of Port Elizabeth Bill.

The two words to be inserted by clause 4 (b) into the Afrikaans text of section 8 (3) of the Act are to correct an omission that was not noticed at the time of its consolidation and translation from Dutch into Afrikaans in 1959.

The amendments under clause 7 to section 16 of the Act stem from the establishment of the traffic court and the desire that such a court or similar body exercising disciplinary powers have authority to exercise disciplinary powers in terms of its constitution or of rules made by the Council.

These amendments are of a domestic nature and I therefore move, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it has been customary here when a Bill is introduced to establish a university, for both sides of the House to exchange compliments and to congratulate the sponsors of the Bill on the extension of our whole university system in South Africa. When an amending Bill has been introduced we realize that the university has probably reached a stage where it intends to extend the facilities of that university and improve its organization. In introducing this Bill the hon. the Minister referred to the clauses in the Bill, but the principle of the Bill, and there is a principle in this amending Bill, a very important principle, is contained in clause 7 of the Bill. The hon. the Minister made reference to that in his concluding remarks. Clause 7 of the Bill contains the principle. It is mainly for that reason that the Bill is being introduced. The hon. the Minister has given us his Second Reading speech but he published a Second Reading speech very much earlier. The hon. the Minister departed from the customary system of this House of making statements here and in his capacity as Minister of Information he issued a statement to the Press. I should like the hon. the Minister in replying to this Second Reading debate to tell us what is the distribution of these statements to the Press. I have not received a copy of this statement, but one has come into my hands. It is an Afrikaans copy and I should like to quote from it and pass some remarks about it because I regard this copy as the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech. He deals with it in the opening sentence. This statement is worded as follows—

Now we come to the first paragraph:

It is necessary for the university to have a clause in a Bill to do that. They have the power to do that now. They have defined the power more closely here, but they have that power now. I want to go on to the second paragraph:

Why does the hon. the Minister bring into this the name of a learned and eminent judge who is a member of the Council? It is unnecessary. This is a domestic committee which sat to deal with the constitution of the “Verteenwoordigende Studenteraad”. A Students’ Representative Council is not part of he Constitution of the University of Cape Town nor is it of Stellenbosch or the Free State or Potchefstroom Universities, but it is of the University of the Witwatersrand, where one gets the model drafting for our universities. I come to the third paragraph. I shall not quote it all. I shall only quote part of it. It reads as follows:

They have that power now. That is not the reason. The hon. the Minister could by investigation assure himself of that. I shall not read the whole of the third paragraph. It is just an extension of this argument. I come to the fourth paragraph. There are only five. It reads as follows:

This is the constitution of an internal body in the University, which is not mentioned in the Constitution of the University. Paragraph four continues:

Anything that was unpleasant to the Minister was an internal matter for their Council. The autonomy of the University was sufficient to deal with it. I now come to the final paragraph, which reads as follows:

Those were two Bills which were introduced last year. The hon. the Minister now explains why he is not proceeding with them. I do not want to know why the hon. the Minister is withdrawing those Bills. What I do want to know is why he ever introduced them. Why do I ask that question? Why did he ever introduce them? The hon. the Minister in controlling our universities has a University Advisory Committee consisting of more than three but not more than eight members. These are selected men from the universities who make up that Advisory Committee. In addition he has a Committee of Principals of Universities. There is a representative from each university in the country. He is surrounded by advisory committees, and last year he introduced these two Bills. I should like him to tell us whether either of these committees advised him to introduce those bills which were really interfering with the domestic affairs of one of our universities.

That is not under discussion now.

That is the Second Reading Speech I dealt with.

I am sorry. That is not under discussion now.

Well, Sir, I should now like to quote what the reaction of the public has been to the statement by the Minister. I quote now from a leading article in a Johannesburg newspaper—not a local Cape Town newspaper. I am trying to explain that the manner in which this Bill was introduced has not been desirable from the point of view of this House. It is not the Parliamentary manner.

All those matters have nothing to do with this Bill.

But Mr. Speaker, I am trying to show what the reaction to the hon. the Minister’s Press declaration is in regard to this Bill.

The hon. member is casting his thoughts too far and wide. He must come back to the Bill.

Well, Sir, I should very much like to quote briefly what the Rand Daily Mail said about this. It is a statement of which I completely disapprove. May I proceed to quote it, Sir? I shall quote it briefly. They say:

I do not know what they have to do with it—

Order! I think the hon. member has quoted enough for us to know what the rest of the article is.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to quote this article for one reason, and that is to condemn it completely. I wish to condemn this article after reading it. I may not proceed? Is that so, Sir?

I would prefer the hon. member not to proceed.

Very well, Sir. Then I think you will permit me to quote a statement as a result of all this, by the University

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member is dealing with comment on this particular Bill. Surely that is quite in order?

It is not this Bill.

It is this Bill, Sir.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Now that I am not being permitted to quote the Rand Daily Mail article, I know you will permit me, Sir, to quote a statement of the Council of the University itself in regard to this Bill. The Council of the University, in a statement in The Cape Times …

Which Bill are you referring to? Is it this Bill before the House?

Yes.

This is a Private Bill from the University.

I know it is. The Chairman of the Council published this statement, and I shall quote only one paragraph:

That is all I wish to quote. I said at one stage that there is no Students’ Representative Council recognized in the Constitution of the Cape Town University, but there is one in that of the University of the Witwatersrand. I should like to ask this question: Why has the Minister had to deal with two Bills which were withdrawn? What is the reason for that? Why has he introduced clause 7 in a Press statement?

Order! I shall not allow the hon. member to discuss Bills that have been withdrawn. They are not under discussion now.

I now wish to discuss clause 7. Why has the Minister introduced clause 7?

I did not introduce it. It is the University of Cape Town’s Bill.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister is sponsoring the Bill. Surely he must answer any criticism on the Bill. The hon. the Minister is responsible for it. Why is this being introduced? The reason is that in this university, as in three other universities, there are non-white students and therefore the hon. the Minister feels he should sponsor a clause in a Bill to make provision for disciplinary regulations. That is the reason. It is not the fault of the University that there are nonwhite students there. Under the Separate Universities Act, section 17 states that a white student may not attend a university college; and a non-white student may not attend a university except with the permission of the Minister.

Order! I think the hon. member is going too far now; he must come back to the provisions of the Bill.

Sir, I am dealing with clause 7.

Order! The hon. member’s interpretation of clause 7 is far too wide.

Well, I will read clause 7 and show how it amends the present law. The other clauses are of minor importance. Clause 7 contains the present disciplinary provisions—

That is what the law says at the moment, and you have the same law at Stellenbosch, the Free State and Potchefstroom. It is the same law; they are not amending it there. But the University of the Witwatersrand adds certain words, and the words which they add are these: “or by the rules of the council.” This university in clause 7 is adopting the system of the University of the Witwatersrand. Why do they say they are not satisfied with discipline controlled only by the Statutes? The hon. the Minister is interested in this, I know, because when Statutes are introduced in a university they have to be submitted to the Minister and they have to lie on the Table of the House before they are approved. The universities find that if they have to maintain discipline they must be able to deal with discipline on the spot, by the rules of the council. The University of the Witwatersrand makes that provision. As I have said, Stellenbosch, the Free State, Potchefstroom and Cape Town do not, but the new University of Port Elizabeth has followed the rule of the Witwatersrand University and the new university, the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit, follows the way of the Witwatersrand University. In other words, they would not need an amendment such as we have here in clause 7. I say that none of these universities require an amendment unless they have these non-white students. They are there to please the Minister. If the hon. the Minister is not satisfied with the manner in which these students behave there, he should send them to Stellenbosch or Potchefstroom.

What has that to do with this Bill?

Order! I must ask the hon. member to come back to the provisions of the Bill.

Sir, I have dealt with the main provision of the Bill. The other provisions to which the Minister has referred are subsidiary; they are of very little importance.

It has been a long time since I last saw a spectacle such as this.

Order! I hope the hon. the Minister …

Mr. Speaker, I can promise you that I shall not follow that course. I think the hon. member for Kensington has done the University of Cape Town a tremendous disservice by making this speech here.

Not such a disservice as you did them last year.

The hon. member must remember that this Bill is in the first instance a private Bill. This Bill was submitted to me by the University of Cape Town and I have not changed one jot or title of the Bill. I cannot understand how the hon. member could have allowed himself to be prompted into making a speech here on irrelevant matters. It is generally known that the Council of the University of Cape Town experienced difficulties as far as the discipline of the students was concerned; it is generally known that I would have acted because the Council did not want to act at a certain stage, and it is also generally known that the Council appointed a commission of inquiry to put their affairs in order, and it ought to become generally known that after the Council had appointed a commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of a judge, this amendment to clause 7 was effected. In other words, it was not done by me. The findings of the commission were that it would be to the good of the University if this were done, and after having considered what they had submitted to me, I was prepared to pilot this Private Bill of theirs through this House, as I am doing now, with the full confidence that this is the best thing the University of Cape Town could have done to ensure its continued existence.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Council of the University has asked that the University of South Africa Act, 1959, be amended in order that it may organize itself on a proper basis. The background to the present constitution of the Council and the Senate of the University of South Africa is briefly as follows: Towards the end of 1946 the Government appointed a commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Dr. Edgar Brookes to investigate and report upon future policy as regards the University of South Africa and its constituent colleges. This commission submitted its report in May, 1947. The report recommended that the various colleges, excluding the Huguenot College and the University College of Fort Hare, be given university status on certain conditions and as soon as possible and that the University of South Africa should continue in existence for the benefit of external students.

As a result of the recommendations contained in the report of the Brookes Commission the Council of the University, on completion of an investigation which commenced at the beginning of 1949 and after exhaustive consultations with the Committee of University Principals, decided in August, 1950, to recommend to the Minister of Education, Arts and Science that provision be made for degrees and diplomas for external students and, secondly, that the institution to be established for this purpose be an independent and legally constituted body, divorced from the other universities, but acting in close collaboration with the other universities in such a way that the representatives of those other universities would have a controlling vote in the Senate in order to control the curricula, syllabuses and examinations and to ensure that proper standards were maintained. During the Parliamentary session of 1951 the necessary legislation was passed, in terms of which the University of South Africa was constituted anew and in which provision was made for, inter alia, representation of the other universities on the control bodies of the University of South Africa. As far as the Council is concerned, provision is made in terms of section 8 (1) (c) for the appointment of the principal of every other university in the Republic or, in the place of such principal. Some body appointed as representative at his instance by the council of such university. As regards the Senate, section 9 (1) (e) provides for the appointment of two representatives of the senate of every other university, and paragraph (f) provides for the appointment of at least eight persons being professors or lecturers at any of the other universities in the Republic.

There was a real need for the composition of controlling bodies to be modified, because the composition of the Senate of the University as set out above, resulted in considerable expense having to be incurred to convoke the Senate. Consequently it was impossible for the Senate to hold more than one general meeting during any academic year. Although it exercised excellent control over syllabuses and examinations it was unable to exercise effective control as regards the numerous other matters in connection with the training of students. These flaws have been fully realized during all these years. Statutory provision was made for a Lecturers’ Council, but this was only an advisory body. The result was that essential improvements in syllabuses were delayed quite unnecessarily. Since 1951 the position as regards academic staff at the university has changed considerably. For example, in 1951 the University did not have a single professor yet. The staff therefore consisted of relatively junior members. At present the University has more than 50 professors. Some of the members of staff are experienced lecturers who have gained wide experience at other universities. Two of the professors are former deans at two of the other universities.

With such a large number of excellent senior members of staff at the University, representatives of senates of other universities realized long ago that there could no longer be any question of control by other universities. As a result of a proposal made by a principal of one of the other universities, the Council appointed a joint committee of the Senate and the Council to investigate and submit recommendations in regard to the composition of the management bodies of the University. Suggestions made by the committee were considered by the Executive Committee of the Senate and the Council. These suggestions were unanimously accepted by the Council and referred to the Senate, which agreed to them. Effect is being given to them by clauses 3 and 4.

It will be noticed that provision is being made in clauses 3 and 4 of the proposed Bill for some measure of representation of other universities on both the Senate and the Council, the reason being that the Council feels convinced that, in view of the fact that the university is the only institution which makes provision for tuition to external students by means of correspondence courses, it is essential that co-operation with other universities continue.

As regards the proposed amendment of the Act. I should like to point out that having regard to the provisions of the Universities Act, 1955, as well as the development which has taken place at the University during the past years, some sections in the existing Act have now become redundant.

In its request the Council of the University emphasized that there was an urgent need for greater efficiency in the functioning of its control bodies. As a result of the existing ineffective composition of these bodies, various internal committees with no statutory powers have been established to assist the Principal with the internal organization of the University. Although the establishment of such committees has assisted the University to continue to function on a reasonable basis, it has necessarily resulted in too much of the time of senior members of the staff being taken up by meetings, to the detriment of their academic work.

In Afrikaans the recognized title of the head of a university is “rektor”, the English equivalent being “principal”. Consequently, the Senate recommended unanimously to the Council on 14th October, 1966, that the word “rektor” be substituted throughout for the word “prinsipaal” in the Afrikaans text for the University of South Africa as well; this is being done by clauses 1 and 2. In clause 1 provision is also made for the University to have wide powers to cover the hiring and leasing of property, the investing and borrowing of money and the entering into of contracts of guarantee and surety ship; the latter is intended to guarantee loans granted to members of staff to obtain houses, as was done recently in the case of the University of Port Elizabeth and other universities. It has also been decided that instead of the Principal being appointed by the Council, subject to the approval of the Minister, the appointment should be made by the Council after consultation with the Senate, as is being provided in clause 2.

The Council is of the opinion that the State President should be quite free to nominate whomsoever he pleases as members of the Council, as is being provided in clause 3, without taking into consideration the representation of the convocation. The Senate is of the opinion that a representation of only two members of the Senate on the Council is inadequate. Provision is consequently being made for this representation to be increased to four. Whereas the principal or a representative of the principal of every other university is a member of the Council at present, the representation of other universities is now being limited to two principals appointed by the Committee of University Principals. The principal is now a member of the Council qua principal and not because he is the Chairman of the Senate, and provision is being made for the appointment of two persons by the Council to represent the Convocation. It will be noticed that the provision which lays down that one of the members of the Convocation shall be elected for the purpose of representing the interests of non-White students is now being deleted completely. All members of the Council represent the interests of all students, and it is therefore not right that reference is made in the Act to the representation of the interests of any single group of students. Nonwhite students also consist of different groups. namely Coloureds, Indians and Bantu, and the interests of these various groups cannot be regarded as identical ether and cannot be represented by one person only. A new provision is being introduced to prevent there being any possibility of the Senate getting greater representation on the Council than the four members elected by the Senate. It has once again become necessary to make provision for committees of the Council (in clause 3 (b)) and of the Senate (in clause 4 (1) (b)) and for joint committees (in clause 5) in order to make possible the eventual repeal of section 7 of the Higher Education Amendment Act, 1946. In this way the Senate is being afforded the opportunity to appoint scientists or other eminent academicians on its committees, thus obtaining their valuable services for the University.

The most important amendment being made by clause 4 is to the effect that the senates of other universities will no longer automatically nominate two members to the Senate of the University, but provision is being made for the head of the University library to become a full member of the Senate. Moreover, the provision that the Senate of the University may nominate at least another eight representatives of all the other universities to its Senate, over and above the nominations by the senate of other universities, is also being debated. It is, however, made possible for additional professors of other universities to be appointed on the Senate of the University, although such appointments will be purely in the hands of the Council of the University.

Provisions regarding the duties, powers and meetings of the Convocation are matters which can be regulated better in the Statutes than in the Act, and for that reason provisions relating to these matters are now being removed from the Act, while any person who does not want to become or remain a member of the Convocation is being afforded that choice.

I now come to clause 7. In the first instance, the University no longer consists of two sections; it exists as a complete entity and for that reason it is wrong still to refer to a department of studies in the Act. In the past all academic appointments were made after consultation with the Senate, although no pro-, vision for this was made in the Act. The necessary amendments are being effected now. The matters referred to in clause 8 are matters which already apply in practice, but for which provision is now being made in the Act. The amendments in clauses 9, 10 and 13 are mainly of a textual nature and accord with modern practice.

Section 10 (2) of the Act already provides that the Senate may supervise the examinations and syllabuses of the University. The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 15 and of section 16 were therefore redundant and were consequently deleted in terms of clauses 11 and 12, respectively.

This Bill, unlike the previous one, is the ordinary amending Bill of a university. There is no clearly defined principle here. It is just a series of clauses because they wish to amend the provisions of their Act. We do not wish to discuss those clauses now because, as I say, there is no definite principle involved, but in the Committee Stage we should like to discuss the provisions. I think it is only fair that I should tell the Minister we would like to discuss clauses 3, 4, 6 and 9 in the Committee Stage, and the Minister can probably meet our criticisms then.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Council of the University of Pretoria requested the Government to effect certain amendments to their Private Act No. 13 of 1930, and has for that purpose drafted an amending Bill, which in clause 1 clearly authorizes the University to invest, borrow and lend money. This provision is of a domestic nature and ought to be included in each university’s Private Act rather than in the Universities Act, 1955, in which it appears at the moment, but from which it is to be deleted.

Various obsolete provisions in section 7 of the Act are being substituted in terms of clause 1, while a new section 8A is being inserted in the Act by clause 4 in order to make provision for committees of the Council and the Senate, so that section 7 of the Higher Education Amendment Act, 1946 (Act No. 18 of 1946), may be repealed in due course.

In section 9 in the English version the word “Principal” is being substituted for “Rector” by clause 5, as is being done wherever it occurs; paragraph (c) of subsection (3) is being reworded as a result of the omission of the relevant part of section 16 in connection with admission to the Convocation, and in subsection (4) the restrictive provision in regard to the amount payable prior to admission to the Convocation is being omitted.

The names of certain faculties in section 10 are being changed by clause 6, and other provision is being made in regard to the established faculties as well as the subdivision of faculties into departments, in order to bring the statutory provision into greater conformity with the mutual arrangements between the Senate and the Council of the University.

Subsection (2) of section 11 has become superfluous as a result of the provision in regard to conditions of service of the members of staff of universities in section 13 of the Universities Act, 1955, and is therefore being repealed by clause 7.

Section 16 of the Act makes provision for admitting any graduate of any other university to equivalent status, and for admitting any person who has passed certain examinations at any other university or at any other institution to membership of the Convocation or as a candidate for the degree of master or doctor. In 1940 the Statute of the University was amended to admit any such person to any other post-graduate degree as well, but in 1964 it was declared ultra vires for the University to have effected such an amendment. Therefore section 16 is now being amended by clause 8 to authorize the admission of any such person to any other post-graduate degree with effect from the date of commencement of the Act in 1930, but with the omission, as far as the future is concerned, of the provision in regard to the admission of any such person to the Convocation.

The amendments in clauses 9 to 13 are intended to modernize obsolete provisions, while clause 14 contains the short title of the Bill.

This is purely a formal Bill. I should like to refer to what the hon. the Minister said about the introduction of university Bills. He mentioned it during the Second Reading of the first Bill with which we dealt to-day. I think it would be a good thing if we could revert to something like the old system where we had private Bills. Even though the Minister introduces the Bills he can refer them to a Select Committee. Such a Select Committee need only sit for an hour or two in one morning to complete its consideration of a Bill. That can have the effect of avoiding discussion here in the House. The Select Committee then could meet a delegation from the university concerned—as we did under the old private Bill procedure. The Minister said he intended to use that procedure in respect of the University of Cape Town.

That is my intention in respect of all universities.

Thank you. That is what I want.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment which was put forward by the hon. member for Umlazi. The Minister has shown, judging from his attitude when this clause was discussed last time, that he is concerned to have a better and fairer clause. He has shown that by moving amendments himself and by accepting an amendment put forward by the hon. member for Prinshof.

I should like to remind hon. members that in this clause we are dealing with factors which have to be taken into account in deciding whether a person is in appearance obviously a white person or not a white person, as defined. The position is that in the proposed subsection (2) (d) we are dealing with statements which are deemed to be admissions by a person to the effect that he is by descent a Bantu or a Coloured person. I am sure the hon. member for Prinshof, whom I am glad to see is present here, will follow my argument and will support it if he deems it sound. The hon. member for Prinshof, very rightly, moved an amendment, an amendment which lawyers would understand, namely to limit the statements which can affect a person’s classification to statements made by himself. The hon. member pointed out that such statements were often in law treated as admissions against interest. For this reason he introduced his amendment to limit these statements to statements made by a person himself. But this is all the hon. member for Umlazi seems to do in respect of paragraphs (e) and (f). Paragraph (e) reads as follows—

The amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi is to omit the words “or in respect of” thereby limiting this paragraph to statements made by the person himself.

This paragraph merely fixes the date. Therefore it does not matter whether the statements have been made by himself or by somebody else. That is the time of classification.

With respect, it states that “the fact that any person who was generally accepted … on the date on which a form or return referred to in section 3 or 9 was completed by or in respect of him, shall at all times be conclusive proof that he is so accepted”. Though it may refer to the date, the position is that if one limits this to statements made by the man himself, it follows as a consequence that those words can come out. Then it can only be statements made by him on that date. If statements by other people referring to him are excluded those words become redundant. The same goes as far as the further subsection is concerned. If one looks at subsection (3), you will see this even more clearly. Subsection (3) reads:

And then we have the hon. the Minister’s amendment—

There we have it put very clearly that in a form referred to in section 3 or 9, the race of a person is described in a certain way. The hon. member for Umlazi’s amendment seeks to limit returns or forms in terms of those two sections to those completed by the person concerned. In other words, they are limiting it to admissions made by the person himself and he is getting away from the position which is quite clear, viz. that under sections 3 and 9 you can have forms and returns containing statements by persons other than the person concerned which could act to his disadvantage in his classification. I think it is quite clear that in terms of sections 3 and 9 there can be all manner of forms and returns compiled by enumerators.

That is why the Minister’s amendment gives adequate protection. Provision is made here for a birth register. You cannot expect him to fill it in himself.

No, but I would say that in regard to a man’s birth one should be reluctant to hold an admission made by somebody on his behalf against himself.

That is why the Minister gives him this protection in the amendment.

That is merely an opportunity to disprove it. The clause goes far further than merely returns in the nature of a birth certificate. They may be census forms. An enumerator comes around and sees this man and forms an impression of him and notes it down, perhaps with very little light and perhaps in surroundings in which it is difficult to get an accurate assessment. Whether it is easy or difficult, the fact is that here is some outside person, not the man being classified himself, who is making statements on forms and returns which can gravely prejudice a man. The hon. member for Umlazi is saying, and I suggest he is submitting a very fair plea to the hon. the Minister, that to allow such a man to be injured is unfair. Such situations should only arise where the statement is made by the man himself.

[Inaudible.]

It could, as the hon. member for Umlazi points out, be the matron of an orphanage who could complete a form or make a return. Where such important consequences can follow, it seems a very fair rule of approach and law that one should limit the effect of these statements in forms and returns to those made by the person himself. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that in fact in the rest of paragraph this is the case. If one looks at paragraph (d) (i) it is where the man himself admits before a board or for the purposes of classification before a court. In subsection (d) (iii) it is where the man for the purposes of his classification admits or has admitted. This is the line that appears in the other two subsections and it does apply in part of the existing subsection (d) (ii), namely in respect of any application for an identity card completed and signed by him. But the remaining part of subsection (ii) has this wider statement included, and it is that which the amendment is designed to put right. I do suggest that this is within the spirit of the approach which the hon. the Minister himself has adopted. It may perhaps be a difficult question for immediate interpretation. I hope the hon. the Minister will merely indicate, if he finds it impossible to accept this immediately, his views. I hope that he will accept it now. Perhaps study has enabled him to accept it now. If he is uncertain as to whether perhaps he will be infringing his clause and harming it in some way, I hope that he will consider it and merely indicate that he does wish to bring it into line with the general approach which I have indicated, and that will be sufficient.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have explained that I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi because everything he seeks to achieve by it is already effected by my own amendment. One has to read the provisions together. They cannot simply be read separately; consequently I think it is quite superfluous. It is not that I am not in sympathy with his sentiments, but the best proof of the fact that I do want to give a person a chance if someone else has signed or completed a form on behalf of him. is provided by my own amendment. Furthermore, it is provided in the clauses that an opportunity shall be afforded to prove the contrary at any time. No matter whether or not the man is dead, someone else can still appear before a court or before a board or before the Secretary. He may then prove the contrary and say that the information was not correct and that the circumstances were not as presumed by the people who did the classification. For that reason I think it is superfluous. Why should we include unnecessary provisions in the Act? The more superfluous provisions there are. the more complicated it becomes. That is why I cannot accept it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has told us that he cannot accept the amendment because his own amendment already gives all the protection that is needed. The hon. the Minister’s amendment in regard to subsection (3) does enable a person to prove that he is not in fact a Coloured person. I agree that it does; but we are dealing with a different position. The hon. the Minister’s amendment leaves an onus upon the person to prove a situation. It gives him the opportunity, but places the onus on him to, as it were, satisfy a court or classification board as to the state of affairs. What we are asking is that he should not be at prejudice on the basis of statements that he has not made himself. This is a very difficult position. In one case he would not be obliged to answer the charge. The hon. the Minister’s amendment simply gives him the opportunity to argue himself out of it. Otherwise, he is classified adversely.

Order! The hon. member is now repeating what was said during the previous debate on this clause.

Mr. Chairman, may I, to put an end to this argument, say that it is generally accepted in our country that if a person is described “as of mixed origin”, then he is not a White. There have in fact been cases such as those referred to by hon. members on the Opposition side, of a person who stated on the form that he was of mixed descent because his mother was British and his father Afrikaans-speaking, or German. But in the general terminology of South Africa, which was and still is acceptable, we know that if a person says he is of mixed descent it means that he is not a pure White. If he is mixed, it means he is mixed with nonwhite groups. Because this is the case, we say that we accept that a person is not White, but then the man may prove to us that his mixed descent does not signify White and non-White. His “mixed descent” related to different nationalities. We are not dealing with the classification of nationalities. We are now dealing with race classification, and not with nationality classifications. For that reason I cannot accept the proposal by the hon. member for Umlazi. I want to place the onus on such a person. Surely he will know best and he will be able to produce the proper evidence to prove that in his case “mixed” does not mean a mixture of White and non-White. That is the stream we want to stop. People who are essentially not White but who are accepted as White through incidental associations in some respects and through appearance in other respects, may so easily join the white stream. It is therefore the object of the legislation and the intention of the Government to curb that gradual biological integration. For that reason I cannot accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I follow clearly the explanation by the hon. the Minister. I want to come back to the new subsection (2) (e). I appreciate what this means. It means that if at a certain date …

You are also repeating arguments now.

With respect, this is the second time I am speaking on this clause.

You were not here all the time. Others have raised that argument time and time again.

Order! I shall rule when members are repeating arguments.

The hon. the Minister is clairvoyant too. He can read my thoughts. I merely want to mention a case I dealt with myself. That certainly cannot be repetition because nobody knows the case I am referring to. A form is filled in for a child, as happened in this case. His parents were there and they were accepted as being obviously Coloured by the person who filled in that form. But time went on. I want to refer to two young ladies, both fair, and as white as any of us. They had to appear through me before a board. They proved that as youngsters they had left that area and from that time, as youngsters, they had mixed completely and solely with white people. Their skin, their behaviour, their deportment and their speech were completely that of a European. They only discovered the truth when the one wanted to get married. Both of them were on the point of committing suicide when they found that they were declared differently to what they believed they were. The point I want to make to the hon. the Minister is that he uses these words “at all times the conclusive proof”. If it is at all times to be conclusive proof, what hope would these two young ladies have had of being classified as Europeans. The form was filled in by somebody when they were youngsters, ether their father or the enumerator. The hon. the Minister will say to me that it was at the time that the form was filled in that they were accepted. I am not worried about the father or the mother, but what about the children? They will at all times be bound and the Secretary and the Government or the Department or the Board will at all times have to read this and say: This is conclusive proof that you have been accepted as a Coloured, as long as 15 or 20 years ago. That is my interpretation. If the Minister disagrees with me, I am very sorry. I merely want to say that these are new words which are now being added by the Minister. The words “at all times be conclusive proof that he is so accepted” are underlined, and therefore new. They will mean that many people, through no fault of their own—people in respect of whom ten or 15 years previously, a form was filled in by somebody else—will be debarred for ever. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me, if in fact these two young girls were to apply after this Bill is passed, any board would be entitled to say to them: We are very sorry. We cannot help you. This is our interpretation of the Bill. We cannot help you because the form which was filled in on your behalf 15 or 20 years ago is conclusive proof against you.

I want to set the hon. member’s mind at rest. In the new subsection (2) (d) (ii) it is stated explicitly, in consequence of the amendment by the hon. member for Prinshof which I have accepted, that the form or return shall only be held to be proof against a person if that person himself has completed and signed the form. That is therefore disposed of. That is the only form which may be held to be proof against such a person. As for paragraph (e), to which the hon. member referred, it only states that the date on which such a form is completed—not the contents of the form— shall be deemed to be the date on which a classification should have been made. It has therefore nothing to do with the contents of the form, but why should we insert paragraph

1. (d) (ii) if we can attach the same interpretation to paragraph (e), which paragraph (d) (ii) would then destroy completely? Surely we would then be playing the fool with the public. I have gone into this matter very thoroughly, particularly since we last discussed it, not only with the Departmental legal representatives but also with other legal representatives. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the only legal interpretation paragraph (e) will have will be to determine the date. They tell me that unless it is inserted, it will not be possible to determine any date in respect of thousands and thousands of people who have to be classified. Surely a classification has to be made as from a certain date.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I am not satisfied with the explanation that the hon. the Minister has given. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will listen to what I have to say. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will listen.

Will the hon. member continue?

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to attract the hon. the Minister’s attention. He is talking all the time to the hon. member for Prinshof. This is a matter of considerable importance and I do wish that the hon. the Minister would take this seriously.

[Inaudible.]

You see, Sir, he is not the least bit concerned about what is being said, although this is a matter of very considerable importance. The hon. the Minister is quite wrong. The information to which this relates is not merely the date. Mr. Chairman, I think it is most discourteous of the hon. the Minister to carry on in this way. This is a matter of importance.

The hon. member is merely repeating arguments advanced by other hon. members.

I am not repeating previous arguments at all, Sir. I am trying to deal with the explanation given by the hon. the Minister.

I can tell the hon. member exactly what he has said up to now.

Sir, I am going to deal with what the hon. the Minister said and I wish he would stop interrupting and stop carrying on in this fashion. What sort of Minister is he? Paragraph (e) says—

Sir, this does not refer only to the date as the hon. the Minister claims it does. It refers to the fact that he is generally accepted as a white person.

At that date.

This is the information which is going to be accepted as conclusive for all time—the fact that he was generally accepted as a white person on a particular date. That being so, I think it is most unreasonable indeed that this should be accepted as conclusive proof against him even where he has not signed the form at all. That is the way this clause reads because it relates to a form not only completed by the person concerned but completed by someone else in respect of him. The explanation which the hon. the Minister gave is quite wrong. He says that it refers only to the date upon which the form was signed. This is not what the clause says and I wish he would read it again. This clause is along similar lines to subsection (3) which follows but it goes a lot further. Subsection (3) says that where a form has the word “gemeng” or “mixed”, that will be deemed to be conclusive, except that in terms of the new amendment the person concerned can challenge: but when you come to (e), the fact that he is generally accepted as a white person on the particular date on which a form was signed, is to be accepted as conclusive proof against him even though he himself did not sign the form. That is what (e) says. Now, Sir, I would like to deal with another matter which arises under (a). The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that Judge Diemont had seated that it would be easier to classify people if their habits, education, speech, deportment, etc., could be referred to. But it does not help in a Bill of this kind to add these words unless you define them. Surely it does not help the Judge to be told that he can refer to people’s habits, for example, unless he is told what habits would justify him in classifying a man as white and what habits would justify him in classifying a man as Coloured or Bantu, and the same applies to education, speech and deportment. It does not assist the hon. the Minister to say that Judge Diemont referred to these terms unless the Government defines in this new legislation what type of demeanour would justify the classification of a person as Coloured and what type of demeanour would justify the classification of a person as white. Sir, that is our objection to (a) and that is the objection to which we have had no reply from the other side of the House. I trust that we will have a clear explanation on these two points at any rate from the hon. the Minister, instead of carrying on as though he does not care what is being put up to him. He is the Minister in charge of this Bill; he is here to justify it and when we raise points, he does not answer them at all; he deals with other matters. What we want him to do is to answer the points which we put to him, not points which he thinks we are making. If he would listen more carefully he would understand precisely which points are put to him and then he would not waste our time answering things which have not been put to him.

The hon. member for Musgrave should realize that he will not get much further if he tries to obtain information from Ministers in such a cheeky way. He should be much more modest than he is. I think he is adopting a most obnoxious attitude in this House.

He is too big for his boots.

I should like to try to enlighten hon. members of the Opposition on paragraph (e), on which they appear to have no clarity. I want to try to explain it to them in a simple fashion. This paragraph(e) also relates to paragraph (c) of subsection (2). It relates to acceptance on a certain date. If a person is to be classified or reclassified, certain things have to be taken into consideration. What has to be taken into consideration, amongst other things, is whether he was accepted as a White or as a Coloured or as a Bantu on a certain date, and all that paragraph (e) does is to provide that when the Board or the Secretary or a court has to determine how a person was accepted, then the Board or the Secretary or the court have to determine how he was accepted, not on the date when he applied for reclassification, but on the date when he completed the census form in 1951, or, if he did not complete the census form in 1951, then the Secretary or the Board or the court must determine whether he was accepted as a White or as a Coloured or as a Bantu on the date when he applied for his identity card; that is section 9. Even if he or someone else who completed the form on behalf of him said …

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that he is also repeating previous arguments.

With all respect …

Order! The hon. member must not argue with me about the matter; he is repeating old arguments.

With all due respect, this angle of the argument has never been advanced in the House, and I have been here from the outset, but I do not want to argue with you. I just want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave that the Secretary or the Board or the court has to determine whether the person concerned was accepted as a White, a Coloured or a Bantu, not on the date when he applies for classification or reclassification, but on the date when he completed the census form in 1951, or when he applied or when application was made on his behalf for an identity card.

Sir, I follow exactly the argument of the hon. member for Parow about the census form of 1951. Unfortunately section 9 does not have reference only to a form that might have been filled in in 1951, because section 9 of the Act refers to a form which must be filled in in respect of any person whose name should be on the register.

Let me take the hon. member back to section 4, which says there shall be included on the register all South African citizens who enter or are born in the Union after a fixed date. In other words, someone enters the Republic during the current year, a South African citizen, and he brings with him a child one year old. In terms of section 9, a form is then completed by that person and he also includes in it the name of his year-old child. Now that is done in 1967, not in 1951. This is what I want to bring to the attention of the Minister, because I think there is substance in what the hon. member for Umlazi has submitted. What happens to that child? At the age of 16, that is 16 years hence, and not 16 years from 1951 but 16 years from the time his parents entered the Republic and registered the child, he is classified as a Coloured, and he appeals. Then the Secretary for the Department or the Classification Board or the Appeal Court must come back to find evidence of what the position was 16 years earlier.

I think that for that reason the hon. member for Umlazi was not being unreasonable. It is consequential to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prinshof. Let us disabuse our minds of the persons who were here in 1951 and who were obliged to register then, when this Act came into force, and let us think of the person who in 1970 or in 1980 will be required to register. I think we have found, in dealing with the particulars of this clause, how difficult it is to attempt to define, in the finest detail, how a court or an individual should determine appearance and acceptance. I want to ask the Minister to be good enough to tell me. I asked the question earlier, but the Minister did not reply. Has there been one case of a miscarriage of justice under the 1962 definition? He has given us the figures of the reclassification. We should like to know why the court should now be tried hand and foot, as to how they are to determine acceptance and appearance. I ask the Minister that in all seriousness, because I do not know of a miscarriage of justice through the courts having to determine it, except of course in the Song case, but that is only one case. I should like to know whether there is any other case where a miscarriage of justice took place.

In reply to a statement made by the hon. member for Pinetown the Minister said that this was race classification and had nothing to do with the classification of nationality. In clause 1 we have the definition of a White and a person who is generally accepted as a White and whose habits, education and speech and deportment and demeanour in general are those of a White, and whose natural parents are both classified as White. Now I want to ask the Minister, if nationality is not taken into account in this respect and if it is purely race classification, then according to my interpretation of the clause, if an immigrant arrives here and he is a Cypriot, and he applies for registration, or if he is a Lebanese or a Syrian, and the Minister submits that it has nothing to do with nationality but purely with race classification—and surely this must have happened because many of those people have entered here as immigrants—and if these things can be proved, that he is accepted as a White and mixes with Whites, and that his habits and his appearance are those of a White, and that his parents may be classified as Whites—because upon classification it has to be determined who the man’s parents were …

Read the Act.

It is not a question of reading the Act. I want to go further. If the immigrant arrives here and he is Chinese and he applies for classification, or if he is from Brazil, then he still has to be classified on these grounds which I have mentioned. Now I ask the Minister most cordially, how is the classification dealt with if no notice is taken of nationality and if the only test is whether or not he is a White?

I think I have an amendment which really will meet the attitude which has just been stated by the Minister when last he spoke, and which I am sure also meets the wish and the attitude of the hon. member for Prinshof. It is not the amendment which I was supporting a moment ago. It is simply to do this. My amendment is—

In line 39, after “card” to insert “in each case”.

My submission is that as the clause stands at the moment, (d) (ii) does not reflect the wishes of ether the Minister or the hon. member for Prinshof, because both the Minister and the hon. member for Prinshof believe that in clause (d) (ii) only a form or return referred to in section 3 or 9 which is completed or signed by the person in fact can be used against him, whereas I think that upon a proper construction of that clause there is no doubt that the words “completed and signed” relate only to the words “any application for an identity card”, and not to those previous words that I have referred to. I say that for this reason, that if one looks at the clause the words are “in any form or return referred to in section 3 or 9, or in any application for an identity car completed and signed by him or by his spouse or his guardian in respect of him …”. Clearly a spouse or guardian can only complete and sign an application for an identity card, I would suggest. They can only sign an application for an identity card for him. There is no question of a spouse or a guardian completing a formal return in terms of section 3 or 9, and consequently I think the clear and proper construction of that clause is that the words “completed and signed by the person” qualify only the application for an identity card and do not also qualify the words “a form or return referred to in section 3 or 9”.

The hon. the Minister himself indicated clearly when he spoke—I attempted to hear what he said—that it was only a form signed by the person which could be used against him. I accept that that is his wish—I accept that that is his intention, but to my mind, upon a proper legal construction, it is necessary to add the words I suggest in order that the clause as a whole should have that effect, and therefore I move my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member who has now moved this amendment that I would be glad if he could explain to me how this amendment would improve the clause as a whole, having regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Prinshof. When the hon. member for Pinelands read this clause in English, it appeared that unfortunately he forgot to leave out the words that had been deleted in consequence of the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Prinshof and which has been accepted. I now want to read to the hon. member how the clause would read according to his suggestion—

If in any form or return referred to in section 3 or 9 or in any application for an identity card in each case there appears a statement to the effect that, as far as his race is concerned, he is not a White person …

†That is how it will now read, because the other words, namely “completed and signed by him or by his spouse or his guardian in respect of him …” have now been omitted.

The words after “him”, yes.

The words, “identity card completed and signed by him” still stand.

Yes.

Then come the words, “in each case” …

No, that is wrong …

Let me read it and hon. members can tell me whether I read it correctly. However, I must say to hon. members that this Bill has been on the Order Paper for quite a long time and I do think that if hon. members had really wanted to co-operate in improving the Bill, they have had ample time to give notice of amendments and place them on the Order Paper, instead of coming here with amendments while we are busy in Committee. Hon. members have had ample time. If I cannot think as quickly as other people who drafted the amendments, or get a good idea of what they really want, then they must forgive me. In any case it is not my fault. It reads as follows—

Is that how it should read?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I want to …

Order! The hon. member has had his three turns. I am sorry but he cannot speak again.

I am speaking to this amendment, Sir. On a point of order …

Order! Will the hon. member resume his seat?

Mr. Chairman, I have just consulted the law advisers and according to their views this does not improve the clause whatsoever, it means nothing at all. I am not a legal expert myself but I would rather be led on legal matters by the gentlemen at my disposal than by the hon. member for Pinelands.

He is also a legal man.

I know he is also a legal authority. But I cannot accept his amendment. If this amendment of his does not really effect any great improvement to the clause, then the hon. member will not take it amiss if I say that I cannot accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking to this last amendment. I want to react to the statement made by the Minister when he replied a few minutes ago to the hon. member for Pinelands—I think it was— in connection with paragraph (e) which says—

In dealing with the arguments raised under this clause, the Minister said that this is inserted because he feels that that was the date on which a classification should have been made. I think that as a bald statement made by the hon. the Minister I do not think we on this side can accept that. I respectfully ask the Minister to elucidate further his thoughts in this regard. What exactly does he mean by this statement that that was the date on which a classification should have been made? Some of these returns and forms referred to could have been completed in respect of infants. I wonder if the Minister can elucidate what exactly he meant by that?

First amendment proposed by Mr. J. T. Kruger put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment proposed by Mr. J. O. N. Thompson put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. J.T. Kruger and first amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior put and agreed to.

Question put: That the words “or in respect of” in line 50, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Question affirmed and the first amendment proposed by Mr. H. Lewis negatived.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. H. Lewis put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Remaining amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: B. J. van der Walt and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2:

The first part of this clause is obviously concerned with replacing in the legislation the seven sub-divisions into which the Coloured group has been divided in the past. As you know, Sir, according to a judgment by Mr. Justice Steyn, these various groupings were rubbed out. They had been introduced by way of proclamation by the hon. the Minister and because of vagueness they were completely rubbed out, and it is obvious that the hon. the Minister wishes to replace them. He is using the first portion of clause 2, which amends section 5 of the principal Act, to do this. Not only is he substituting the new section 5 (1), (2) and (3) for the old section 5 in order to restore these seven subdivisions to the legislation but is making them retrospective to the date of the original Act, i.e. 1950. At this stage I am not going to argue any further on this. My only comment would be to say that I can appreciate why the Judge ruled this out on the ground of vagueness, even on the wording of the new subsections which are intended to replace these subdivisions are unusual. Subsection (2) provides that the State President may by proclamation withdraw “any such proclamation or any proclamation purporting to have been issued in terms of this subsection”. That itself to me is vague. It shows that the Minister is not quite sure of his proclamations and the manner in which they were issued. But what I want to deal with is the remaining portion of the clause from subsection (4) onwards because this deals with the all-important subject of reclassification. It starts off by saying—

In other words, this opens the door again and amends those sections dealing with the reclassification of people and in the later section brings in the question of descent. Sir, I would like to ask this hon. Minister when classification is going to be final. When are all the people in these border-line cases who were affected by the 1962 amendment and who have found peace for a while, going to be left alone? When are they going to be sure that if they have been classified white they are going to remain classified as Whites? That is the question that I would like this hon. Minister to answer. It seems to me that he is playing a game and every time the other side scores a goal he changes the rules. That is what he is doing. One or two people have perhaps managed to have their classification changed. Why? As the courts have said, there is nothing wrong with a man changing his classification over the course of time. His habits might have changed; his acceptance might have changed. If he is white in appearance he has been accepted as white. There might be one or two of these cases, but that is a matter of such great importance to this hon. Minister that he now changes the rules again and drives these people back across the line. Whatever for; what is he going to achieve? Is this personal pique?

What is it that drives him to keep on doing this? I honestly do not know. The total number of persons concerned here is infinitesimal in comparison to the population of South Africa, and I cannot see why these amendments keep coming before this House so that the odd person can be caught. Sir, I am going to return to this point. I want to ask one or two more questions. The proposed new section 5 (5) says—

1. (a) a person shall be classified as a white person if his natural parents have both been classified as white persons; …

Simple, Sir, it sounds terrific—

1. (b) a person shall be classified as a Coloured person if his natural parents have both been classified as Coloured persons or one of his natural parents has been classified as a white person and the other natural parent has been classified as a Coloured person or a Bantu.

But who classified his parents? How were they classified? Now it sounds easy. You are going to classify a man according to descent, according to the colour of his parents, but who classified his parents, and under what set of rules and regulations were they classified? Let me tell the Minister that the classification of the parents in these particular cases was one of the most haphazard, slapdash methods that you could wish to come across. We must never forget that man cannot, according to this Bill, go upwards from being a Coloured to a white; he can only be pushed down from a white to a Coloured. That is what the Act says. [Interjection.] Let the hon. member for Parow tell me how it is done. Who classified the parents in the first place? How were the parents of people in my age group classified? If there was any doubt about them, they went to an official of the Department and he classified them.

They classified themselves.

I am talking about borderline and doubtful cases. My parents were classified automatically. There was no doubt about them, but I am not talking about my case. I am talking about the case of the people you are trying to catch with this Act. Who classified their parents? Let me tell the Minister that in classifying the parents who are mentioned in this case, one of his officials blew his brains out in Durban because he could not take it any more. He told me that he could no longer stand looking behind people’s ears and at their finger-nails to decide whether they were white or non-white. He blew his brains out because he could not stand it any longer. That slapdash classification is now going to be used as the new basis for classifying people. If one of his parents was classified as non-white, he shall be classified as a non-white. I want to know by what standards that parent was classified as nonwhite. And where is the evidence going to come from now? Let me quote this Minister’s predecessor on this very question of descent, in the 1962 amendment. He said this—·

He was discussing the 1950 Act—

He goes on to say this—

[Time expired.]

The hen. member for Umlazi once again made the accusation here that in terms of this clause it is the intention of the Minister, with the amendments proposed in subsection (2), to have Whites reclassified as Coloureds and to rake up the whole question of the classification of people who have already been classified—to have people who were classified as Whites reclassified as non-Whites. In the past this accusation was made against us time and again. On every occasion when we amended this legislation and at the very outset, when this law was made originally, that was one of the accusations they made against us, namely that in terms of these provisions we wanted to classify Whites as non-Whites. I want to ask the hon. member this in all fairness. Out of all the thousands upon thousands of cases that were classified, I want him to mention to-day just one single case where a person who had been classified as a white person, was reclassified as a Coloured person. He has to mention just one single case. I can mention to the hon. member hundreds of cases where people who had been classified as Coloured persons were reclassified as Whites in terms of the provisions of this Act. I am asking the hon. member for Umlazi to mention us just one single case. Then there will be substance in his argument. I am waiting for him to rise— he or any other member of the Opposition— to mention such a case to me.

I am going further. The hon. member says that the powers we are granting the Secretary in terms of clause 5 (4) in connection with reclassification, are being granted for the purpose of raking up the past, of disturbing the peace of people classified as Whites. I do in fact want to point out that it is essential for the Secretary to have the power of reclassifying at all times, for the very reason that it does not work the way the hon. member for Umlazi and other hon. members seem to think, but the other way round. There will be many people, who had been classified as non-Whites and who ascertained at some stage or other that they had been classified as Whites, who will come to the Secretary and say, “There is a mistake; we have Coloured identity cards, and you must put the matter right.” I am asking the hon. member for Umlazi whether or not the Secretary should have the right, in terms of the Act, to put the matter right should there have been a mistake. Should the Secretary have the right to reclassify, or should he not?

May I put a question? Will this apply only if the individual himself asks to be reclassified in some or other way, or will it be possible for other persons to complain to the Secretary that another party is wrongly classified?

The hon. member knows very well what the principle is which was accepted during the Second Reading. He is merely picking a quarrel. The principle that was accepted, is that third-party objections were abolished. I want to grant that the hon. member for Musgrave is right in saying that a person may go to the Secretary and say that in his opinion another person’s classification is wrong. But then the onus rests on the Secretary to take steps. This third party who is furnishing the Secretary with this information cannot do anything about the matter by himself other than furnishing the information. He himself cannot institute a case, as has been done up to now, to take the matter to the courts for the purpose of changing the classification. At present the matter rests purely in the hands of the Secretary. If he himself does not want to do it, he may refer it to the Board. But I know what the hon. member for Musgrave is after. He wants to say that this is an opportunity for the “informers”, for the witch-hunters, to say that that person was classified as a White and should really have been classified as a non-white. But what I want to mention is that the Minister has given us the clear assurance that, although this legislation is being made to be of retrospective effect, it is not at all the intention to reconsider the classifications that have already been finalized. The classifications which were made by the Secretary, the Boards and the courts, will be respected, even though some of them were obviously made by the courts as a result of certain deficiencies in the existing Act. There will be no delving into the past, there will be no disturbance of the peace and calm of these people, as the hon. member for Umlazi is trying to suggest here. The explicit assurance has been given here, and it is also for that reason that this Act is being made to be of retrospective effect. Classifications which have been made, are final.

Now I want to refer to another point, namely the question of descent in as far as it has a bearing on both parents. If the hon. members for Umlazi and Musgrave have experience of matters of this nature, as the hon. member for Wynberg and other members have, they will find out that we do not have any problems with people who apply for reclassification and whose parents have already been classified. We have problems with those people whose parents have not been classified, and in that case the Act remains absolutely unchanged. In other words, if a person cannot be classified according to his parents, then the whole process of furnishing evidence is applicable, as it has been in the past. Then the Secretary or the board or the courts have to take appearance, acceptance, descent, habits and all these factors into account. Therefore we are not dealing here with a case of people who were classified. The hon. member for Umlazi must be fair. If two parents had been classified as Coloureds, if they had been classified as non-Whites, and they have no objection to their classification nor are there any other objections to their classification, how can their natural child demand another classification? It is only in exceptional cases that a child whose parents were obviously classified as non-white, will demand to be classified as white. That will not be our difficulty. Reclassifications will occur in cases where parents have not been classified—and there are many such cases—and where one parent might have been classified and not the other. But then this clause is not relevant. Then all the other factors have to be taken into account.

Yes.

Fine, if the hon. member knows what the circumstances are, why is she fighting? The whole approach of hon. members on the other side is that they do not want to accept the principle of classification, and now they are raising all sorts of simple and ill-considered arguments, arguments which they themselves know to have little substance and to be unsound.

Mr. Chairman, what puzzles me about the hon. member for Parow is that he gets so heated about this clause. He talks about policies and colour policies. What I am concerned about regarding this clause— and I must be during the Committee stage—is the effect it will have on the principles or the intentions which were passed at the second reading stage.

The first point I want to raise with the Minister concerns the new section 5 (4) which is inserted by clause 2 of the Bill. I understood from the Minister that the main intention of this legislation was to reach finality—there should not be a question of people being moved from one race group to another. Am I correct when I say—and is the Minister satisfied, that the Secretary because of information he receives or for any other reason can reclassify at any time and that he is not limited to 30 days? I read this to mean that he is, unlike the individual concerned, not limited to 30 days in which to appeal or object. If this subsection remains as it is, it means that every person who is classified runs the risk for the rest of his life-time of being called before the Secretary and told that he thinks a mistake was made 20 years previously, that his predecessor made a mistake 20 years previously, and that the person concerned should not have been classified white but Coloured, or vice versa. It seems to me that the whole motivation of this legislation, according to the second reading speech of the Minister, is killed if this subsection remains, namely that there can be a review and a change by the Secretary at any time. I accept—and in this regard the hon. member for Parow is quite correct—that there cannot be a change when once the board has made a classification. But there are hundreds and thousands of individuals who are classified merely by the Secretary whose cases have not been subject to board review, and it means that, if this measure becomes law, the only people who can feel secure are those who have been classified as a result of an appeal to the Race Classification Appeals Board, because every other classification can be changed by the Secretary at any time if he feels that there is some reason for doing so.

It is the old story—one knows the present Secretary and one says that he would not do a thing like that. But who knows his successor— and his successor’s successor? I remember that we had assurances in 1962, and yet the hon. member for Parow has the audacity to ask us to accept the assurances of to-day. Why? The 1962 assurances were not of much use. There is a new Minister—and new assurances. The next time the matter is discussed, the same position will arise.

Then I want to go on to certain points which I think is a weakness in the drafting. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will consider the matter and perhaps we can amend it. I refer to the reference of matters to the board for decision. I want to come to the strict rules which are to be applied, namely that the classification of appearance shall determine the classification of people’s offspring. Paragraph (b) of the new section 5 (5) starts off as follows—

It is in conformity with paragraph (a) which states that—

It is also in conformity with paragraph (c), which reads—

But why does paragraph (b) have the appendage which reads—

I want to come back to something which I mentioned before in another context, but I nevertheless want to draw the Minister’s attention to it again. It is quite legal and proper for a person who is a coloured person under the Population Registration definition to marry a person who is a white person under the Population Registration Act. In other words, there can be a perfectly legal marriage between two members of these two race groups in accordance with the definition of this Act. Let me put it to the hon. member this way, that it is quite clear that there must exist dozens and dozens of families in South Africa where, if one goes back into their ancestries, one may well find that one of the ancestors was of mixed blood and so technically becomes a Coloured person—one thirty-second part of the bloodstream of one of the ancestors may well be that of a Coloured person. Now, that is all right while the parents stay together. But they may separate; they may have a child and thereafter decide to separate. Let us suppose that the wayward parent decides to associate with Coloureds and eventually becomes classified as a Coloured. The offspring from that marriage, which was perfectly legal and proper, in whose blood the Coloured blood content is infinitesimal, must under this definition be classified as Coloured. The ruling which will be binding on the board once this definition is accepted is a harsh one and can lead to injustices. I have asked the hon. the Minister before to give me instances of injustices under the clause which we have just disposed of. The Minister, however, did not mention one. I can assure him that dozens of injustices can arise if this said provision becomes operative. I wish to apologize to the hon. the Minister that I have not given notice of an amendment previously because this clause needed some consideration and a certain amount of investigation. But I now want to move an amendment to bring this into conformity with (a), (c) and(d). The amendment is as follows—

Paragraph (b) of the proposed subsection (4) of section 5 will then read—

This means that where both parents have been classified as White, the child shall be White; a child of parents who have both been classified as Coloured shall be Coloured, and a child of parents who have both been classified at Bantu shall be classified as Bantu, etc. This is a perfectly legitimate and consistent provision. It will remove a very real possibility of individual hardships and injustices arising if this paragraph remains as drafted.

If I understand the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Green Point correctly, it seems to me as though the classification will be as follows: If both parents are white, then it is white; if both parents are Coloured, then it is Coloured, if both parents are Bantu, then it will be Bantu. If that is the case, surely, we have no problems and we might as well scrap the rest of this legislation. Surely, if both parents are Bantu, there can be no problem in connection with the classification of their children—then it is a foregone conclusion, surely; why shall we tamper with it then? That is why the hon. member’s proposal appears to be ridiculous to me.

There is something I want to say in connection with the proposed subsection (4) of section 5. It grants the Secretary the power to alter classifications which have already been made but are incorrect, other than a classification in accordance with a decision of a board. Then both the methods according to which the Secretary may perform his duties and the way in which this provision is to be applied, are set out—for instance in (b) where it is being provided that a person has to be classified as a Coloured if one of his natural parents has been classified as a white person and the other as a Coloured person. I agree with this. I also agree that it is democratically correct that in cases where the Secretary is unable to give satisfaction, a person may lodge an appeal with the board. But now I want to point out to you that, when a person takes his classification to the board for review, that board may only give a ruling which is in accordance with the provisions as set out in the proposed subsection (5). That is correct, too. But in this respect there is something which worries me, and I want to put forward a suggestion which may perhaps have the result that the United Party will come with reproaches. I do not want to tell the Minister what to do, but I nevertheless want to ask him whether he does not think that in respect of this matter there should be a provision making it of retrospective effect. During the Second Reading Debate I made specific reference to subsection (5) (b), and more specific reference to cases where one of the parents was a Coloured person. In such a case the children must be classified as Coloureds. That is correct. But I want to return to the following provision: “other than a classification in accordance with a decision of a board.”

I think that in this respect, too, the hon. the Minister should allow the Secretary the freedom of reconsidering certain cases which come to his notice or of which he knows or of which the hon. the Minister or I may know— as a matter of fact, there are many of us who know of such cases. I mentioned such a case during the Second Reading Debate. We are not only doing an injustice to the Coloureds or the Whites, but to both. That is why I am asking the Minister whether it is not possible to make a concession in this regard. I think that in this respect we are rendering ourselves guilty of something for which posterity will blame us. As regards the future in general and the immediate future, these provisions cover the position 100 per cent. It was necessary for them to be introduced. They will meet the situation completely. Particularly the borderline cases to which the Opposition has been referring recently, ought not to exist any longer. When the principal Act was introduced, there were borderline cases, people who did not know where they belonged. Some of them were described as white, but they may perhaps have been Coloured. Similarly others were described as Coloured, but they were in fact white. However, such people have now had time to solve their problems. There are no borderline cases to-day. There are in fact pathetic cases. I accept that. Unfortunately such cases do exist, but the time of borderline cases has passed. We are amending this Act so as to put this matter right as far as the future is concerned. What has happened in the immediate past, has necessitated the introduction of these amendments. That was because the system was abused, and that is why it has become necessary to insert these clauses. I think we should leave it at that. I want to address a request to the Minister. I know that he said during the Second Reading that he would not undo past actions. However, I feel that, if we do not undo some of those past actions, we are doing an injustice to many people of both races. I shall be pleased if the Minister could pay attention to that matter. It is not too late. I am not a lawyer to dictate to him. Nor do I want to do so, but I can see that it is possible for things to happen that way.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to note that the hon. member for Mayfair at least has some of the milk of human kindness in his composition, although I could not follow his argument very clearly, when he and the hon. member for Parow both made the most extraordinary point that, as a result of this definition in this clause, there need be no further dispute, and that these matters were finalized.

I would like to raise an issue, the one crying issue which arises out of this clause, namely the question of the children. Surely this is the one thing that arises out of clause 2? I want to refer specifically to the new section 5 (5). In subsection (5) it is stated that a person is classified as white if his parents are both white. He is Coloured if his parents are Coloured. He is a Bantu if his parents are Bantu. He is a Coloured if one of his parents is white and the other is Coloured. This must however be read in conjunction with the new subsection (3), as inserted by clause 1, which we have just discussed, which lays down that anyone described in any form or return—which can mean a census form or a birth certificate—as mixed, shall be deemed to be Coloured. My point is simply this. If there should be an appeal to the Secretary at any time on the question of a mixed form, whatever sort of form it may be, it brings us back to the old question. That is why we say that there can be no finality on this matter. It brings us back to the old question: By what right and on what basis does the Minister or the Secretary, with all the goodwill in the world, decide what percentage of the wrong sort of blood—Coloured or Italian or Portuguese—one must have in order to qualify as a mixed person or as a white? The final decision lies with them. This is where I disagree so fundamentally with the hon. members for Parow and Mayfair when they say that there is finality. The Bill lays down that if both parents are white, the children must be white.

Then there is finality.

Yes, then there is finality. If both parents are Coloured, the children are Coloured. [Interjections.] Yes but wait a minute. This is not the only problem that can arise. It then goes on to say that if one parent is Coloured or mixed, the couple and their children automatically become Coloured. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what happens, and it has happened in many cases that have come to me, when both parents are registered as mixed. This is a situation for which no provision is made for the very obvious reason that no provision can be made.

Had they been classified?

I have evidence of people whose cases are outstanding and who have not yet been classified. There are 148,000 who applied for classification just before 1st August last year, namely seven months ago.

Do you mean for reclassification?

No. These were people who when the hon. the Minister set a time limit for the date on which people could register for classification purposes, which was the 1st August last year, applied for classification. I asked him last year in this House how many people registered for classification purposes during the last quarter up to the 1st August and his reply to me was that there were approximately 148,000 people. I have had cases come to me where both parents in one family have mixed birth certificates. There is no finality.

That was for identity cards. They had all been classified. All of them had not yet received their identity cards.

There have been appeals on cases where they have been classified.

If they have been classified, then they are appealing for reclassification.

Supposing they had appealed in terms of this Bill to the Secretary, he would have had to make up his mind what percentage of blood is the wrong kind. [Interjections.] This clause makes specific reference to minors. I am concerned with the children. If a mother or a father registers a child at birth as mixed, it may be that this information is correct or incorrect. Supposing that the child or all the children are registered as mixed, then an appeal may be made by those children to the Secretary, who then has the right to decide himself or to refer the matter to a board. This is precisely why I say, with respect to the Minister, namely that there is no finality contained in this clause whatsoever. This wretched business will continue, and it is now made infinitely worse because if in fact the Secretary in his wisdom decides that the child can be classified as a white person, in order to have such a classification he has to break association of any kind with the members of his own family. This situation will therefore continue.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister another question. The hon. member for Umlazi, when he spoke just now, quoted at some length from the speech made by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor in 1962. The hon. the Minister, then Senator De Klerk, said in 1962 in the debate on the Population Registration Amendment Bill that children would not be classified in terms of their parents, but as individuals. There is specific provision in this very clause under discussion for that to happen. What I want to know from the hon. the Minister is: Does he abide by the decision of his predecessor that children are not to be classified in terms of their parents, other than subject to those conditions set out here where you get two parents who are of mixed blood? This can arise amongst 148,000 people. What is his decision going to be? Where is any provision made? There is certainly no finality. Does he abide by the decision of his predecessor that children are to be classified as individuals and not in terms of their parents, because no provision is made in this clause for that situation?

In regard to this last question put by the hon. member for Wynberg I must honestly say that I cannot quite understand her problem as she has stated it. I do not know whether she has stated it correctly, but I shall give her the various possibilities and the various solutions as I see them. The first possibility is that the parents have not yet been classified and that they have a child whom they have classified as “mixed”. Is that correct?

Yes.

In that case section 5 (5) does not apply at all, for the simple reason that the parents have not been classified. Let us assume that those parents are in fact classified in due course and that they are both classified as Whites. The child has been registered as “mixed”. Those parents may then simply go to the Secretary in terms of section 5 (4) and point out to him that both the parents have been classified as Whites and that the child is classified as “mixed”, and in terms of the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister the classification may be altered and that child may also be classified as a White. That is one case. The other case is where both parents have been classified as Coloured persons.

The one may be mixed and the other white.

Then the children are classified as Coloured. That is in terms of section 5.

And what happens if the birth certificate states that they are mixed?

Then the registration is fully in accordance with the child’s real classification. Take this case: The one parent is Coloured and the other is White; they have already been classified. They have registered the child as “mixed”, in other words, as a Coloured person. That child will then be classified as a Coloured person in terms of section 5 (5).

The parents have made the choice.

The parents have already been classified, the one as a white person and the other as a Coloured person, and accordingly the child is then classified as a Coloured person, even though the child has been registered as a white person.

And what happens if the child appeals to be classified as a white person?

In those circumstances the child cannot appeal. I am not allowed to discuss the further sections of the Act here, but if the hon. member looks at the sections dealing with appeals she will find that such a child is not allowed to appeal against his classification, because his classification follows that of his parents. I just want to mention here that section 5 is not directly concerned with descent as such. If hon. members want to take the trouble of looking up the case of Rex v. Radebe, they will find that the judge stated in that case that descent goes back three or four degrees before one can determine on a blood count whether a person is Coloured or white. Here one is dealing with classification, and even if parents had initially been classified as Coloured and were subsequently classified as Whites, all their children would be reclassified as Whites. The whole object of section 5 (5) is to keep families together. I now want to refer hon. members to one tragic case in the Transvaal. I think they are aware of this case. In this case the two parents are perfectly white, they are classified as Whites, and they have a child who is obviously a Coloured person or almost a Bantu. In terms of the old Act as it stood that child could have been classified as a Coloured person, while the parents were Whites. But in terms of section 5 (5) that child can now under no circumstances be classified as a Coloured person; that child will now be classified in terms of her parents, and that to me is the justifying principle which is contained in this clause.

Will the child now be classified as a white person?

Of course. She must be classified as a white person. That poor child can now under no circumstances be called a Coloured person by people.

In spite of the fact that the child has the appearance of a Native?

The child may be black, but if the parents have been classified as white persons, then it is a white child, and that child cannot be judged simply on the grounds of the colour of her skin.

Unless you can prove that she is not the child of those parents.

If you can prove that one of the parents has contravened the Immorality Act, it is a different matter. I am speaking of a case where no contravention of the Immorality Act can be proved.

I now want to return to section 5 (4). It seems to me as though hon. members opposite are opposed to that section, and I want to make the statement that if they are opposed to section 5 (5), they cannot be opposed to section 5 (4), for the simple reason that the classification in the hardship cases referred to by them can be put right only if section 5 (4) exists, because if the Secretary does not have the right to correct a classification at any time, then the matter is absolutely final and injustices may in fact occur, but here the Act is leaving the door open to the Secretary to put right the classification subsequently in cases where the classification was obviously wrong, and in that lies the principle of justice contained in subsection (4).

How does he find out?

It is not for him to find out; it is for some person to come and tell him …

Who?

What does the hon. member mean by “who”?

The person himself?

The person himself or a third party or whoever it may be, must come and tell him. In terms of the old Act third parties could object, but they can no longer do so now. The Secretary now has to consider the facts, and his consideration of the facts may be tested in the Supreme Court, and one may obtain a mandamus and contend that he did not give due consideration to the facts. That is therefore a further right enjoyed by such a person. The hon. the Minister has stated clearly in this House that it is a principle of his, just as it was a principle of his predecessors, and just as it will be the principle of all his successors, that classification must come to an end; that people will not be traced and reclassified as Coloured instead of white, as insinuated by the Opposition. That is simply not going to happen. The object of subsection (4) is to keep the door open where persons have been wrongly classified, so that they may be classified correctly. The object of subsection (5) is to keep the families together, so that one will not get a case such as recently occurred in the Transvaal where a baby that was obviously a Coloured person was classified away from its parents. That is the whole principle here. I do not know whether the hon. member for Wynberg has any further problems. If she has any further problems, she may put them to me while I am still on my feet. I do not want to get up again, because I shall be using up my turns to speak. Apparently she has no further problems.

I believe that this is one of the most important clauses in this Bill, because this clause gives the secretary the power to reclassify a person at any time. I want to deal with a matter raised by the hon. member for Parow. The hon. member challenged the statement made by the hon. member for Umlazi that the effect of the amendments introduced in this Bill is going to be only to down-grade people and that they can never result in up-grading. The hon. member for Parow said in passing that the hon. member for Umlazi and I did not know anything about Coloureds because we come from Natal. Sir, that shows how ignorant the hon. member for Parow is. We have a lot of Coloureds in Natal and we have a great many of these border-line cases to deal with. The hon. member for Parow challenged any member on this side of the House to name one case where a white person is classified as a non-White. Sir, I will name him just such a case, but, of course, I shall not mention names, but if he does not believe me I will take him to the secretary for the Interior. This is a case where both parents have been classified as White. They have their identity cards as white persons. The child’s race is shown on the birth certificate as White and yet this child has been classified as Coloured.

Under this law that will be impossible.

It will not be impossible. What is more, this person has applied to the secretary to be reclassified as White and the secretary wrote back saying that he had looked at all the information contained in the file and that he was satisfied that the classification was a proper one. He has therefore not changed the classification. I wrote to the secretary and I had exactly the same reply. I have now taken up this case with the secretary in person. He will know to which case I am referring. Both parents have been classified as White. The child has a birth certificate showing that she is White and yet we cannot get her classification changed from Coloured to White. Perhaps the hon. the Minister or the hon. member for Parow will tell the House how this can be justified. What worries me in this legislation is what is going to happen when this Bill is passed. Once this Bill is passed, is the secretary now going to go back and look at the classification of the parents, and try to alter their classification to non-White so that he will be able to leave the classification of the child as Coloured? If that is what is going to happen, then I believe it is scandalous, and I believe it is doubly scandalous that the Minister should laugh at that suggestion. [Interjection.] What did the hon. the Minister say?

I say it is a scandalous allegation, because if you had read the Bill you would have known that the secretary will be compelled on application for reclassification to classify that child according to the classification of her parents.

The Minister does not realize the implications of his Bill. The secretary is obliged to reopen every classification if somebody comes to him and says I believe that so-and-so has been wrongly classified. That is how widely it is worded, and the hon. member for Parow admitted that this was possible. [Interjection.] In the case I have just referred to, under the proposed amendment giving the power to the secretary to reopen classifications, is it not possible for evidence to be placed before the secretary, or for him to say that because of information he has in his file one or other of these parents was wrongly classified and therefore he can reopen the whole thing? We are very concerned about this, because as we read this amendment, this can be done. That is why we are so concerned about this power, because to us it seems that this can reopen every classification that has already been made. As soon as some information is placed before the secretary indicating that a classification which has already been made may be wrong, he can then reopen the whole thing.

He has always had the right to do it.

The position becomes a great deal more severe under this Bill, because if there is a reclassification by the secretary once this Bill has been passed, then he must classify not in terms of the law as it was before this Bill was passed, but he must look at the position in accordance with the provisions of this Bill, which are far more severe.

It will make it much easier.

It will make it easier for the Minister to have someone classified as Coloured who claims to be White, but more difficult for a person who claims to be White and wants to be classified as White. That is what worries us. Will the Minister give me his assurance that the secretary will reopen classifications only at the request of the person himself? Then the matter will not be so bad. Then one can say this is fair. If there was a genuine mistake and the person concerned goes to the secretary and says he was wrongly classified and asks the secretary to reopen it and to classify him properly, it is fair that the secretary should have the power to do it. But this clause goes much further. It gives the secretary the power to reopen not only at the request of the person concerned, but at the request of anybody else. All they need do is to place before the secretary information which would lead him to believe that there was a wrong classification, and he must reopen it, whether the person concerned is satisfied with his classification or not. I stress that the reclassification under those circumstances must then come about in terms of this very much harsher legislation before the House.

Why do you say he must?

Because subclause (4) says that if at any time it appears to the secretary that the classification of the person in terms of subsection (1) is incorrect he may … Yes, I see the point. The secretary is not obliged to, but he may still do it if he wants to. [Time expired.]

I find it strange how people can sometimes debate. Here we are dealing with an Act which contains various categories of classification. In this amendment we are dealing with four different categories. One relates to persons whose parents are both White. There can be no argument about those. Then there are persons whose parents are both Coloured. There can be no argument about those ether. Then there are persons whose parents are both Bantu, and there is no argument about those ether. But now we come to the fourth category, the person of whose parents one is White and the other Coloured or Bantu. Now I want to say at once that the first argument, that we can go back for generations and start a witch-hunt, is quite ridiculous, because here reference is made to the classification of such a person’s parents. It does not go back three or four generations; it relates to the classification of his parents. It cannot be classification of my parents, who are no longer alive. I go by the classification of my parents, and in that respect there can be no reclassification. In other words, it is quite ridiculous to argue that one can go back for generations in this respect. Only the classification of one’s parents can apply in this respect. If we accept that, then I submit that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the definition in clause 5, because we say that if one of one’s parents is White and the other a Coloured, then one is a Coloured. I want to ask the hon. members on the opposite side how the Coloured group came into being in South Africa. Is it not absolutely in accordance with the true facts that if one of a person’s parents is White and the other a Bantu, then in the past that person belonged to the Coloured group? That is absolutely natural and creates no problems.

No new principle is being established in South Africa. I can understand why hon. members on the opposite side should object so strongly to something which is absolutely in accordance with tradition and custom in South Africa. The hon. member for Wynberg approached me one evening and asked me to help her with the reclassification of a certain person. According to her the person was very decent and was a sister of a certain school principal. I asked her who the school principal was, and I then found that he was one of the best-known Coloured leaders in Namaqualand. Hon. members on the opposite side think that if people reach a certain standard of education and refinement they should be classified as Whites. Surely that is ridiculous and has nothing to do with these factors. I think that the Coloured community is entitled to the top layers of their society. That is the basis of the hon. the Minister’s argument. If a person is a Coloured, he stays with his community. If one person is a Coloured and there has been a mixed marriage with Whites, or if the person concerned has mixed blood, then it is traditional in South Africa that such a person should be a Coloured. In the past those people were held to be Coloureds. Surely that is generally known? Would the hon. member claim that that is not the case? There are isolated cases that have fallen away, and what we undertake here is that regard should be had solely to the classification of the person’s parents. Surely this clause is quite clear. Hon. members on the opposite side are mistaken if they allege that a person’s family tree will now be checked. There is no question of reclassification of dead persons. In other words, if my parents are no longer alive and they were classified as Whites, then I am as safe as can be. The hon. member is just as safe—in case she is worried. There is no question of going back through family trees. Here classification is undertaken solely in accordance with a person’s parents. The classification is as clear as glass. If one parent is classified as a Coloured and the other parent as a White, the child will be classified as a Coloured, because in accordance with traditional custom in South Africa that person landed up in the Coloured group. We now want cases of that nature to stop so that the Coloured group may also feel that they have at least achieved finality so that cases of this nature will not continue to arise for generations and generations. The Coloured group is also entitled to know who their people are and who stays with them. Then their ranks will not be depleted continually. I think it is absolutely immoral in the worst degree to want to drag people away from a certain group all the time. That group is also entitled to their own pride and their own nationhood. I do not think we help them to achieve a nationhood of their own by continually drawing away certain people and by referring to “wrong blood”. There is nothing wrong with their blood—-they are simply Coloureds, and that is that.

And if he preferred to be classified as White?

It does not matter how he prefers to be classified. Surely the hon. member cannot be a cat if he prefers to be so registered? He remains what he is. The hon. member will be classified in accordance with what he actually is. We are not at all concerned with what a person prefers to be. It is not a question of choice. If I preferred to be registered as a little angel, I could not become that; I shall never become that. What nonsense this is! Or if I prefer to be registered as a Bantu, I cannot be that. This relates to the hard facts of what a person really is, and not to what a person prefers to be. Now the hon. member wants to argue and worry about what a man prefers to be. I repeat: A man is not classified as he prefers to be—a man is classified as he really is. A man is classified in terms of traditional customs and conventions in South Africa. I challenge the hon. member to say that he wants race classification in South Africa according to the free choice of every citizen. We challenge that side to say so; then we shall take that to Worcester and to Johannesburg. The hon. member knows that he does not have the courage to say that, and he will not say that. Nobody will say that. In this House we have had a tedious and boring debate on something which is as clear as glass, namely that the classification of a person is made in accordance with what he is. If one parent is a Bantu and the other White, or if one is Coloured and the other White, then he comes under the Coloured group because that is traditionally the origin of the Coloured group, and hundreds, even thousands of them, have gradually landed up in that group. Those people must now become adopted by the Coloured group to become worthy members of that group.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise some of the points which flow from the speech made by the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate. I quite appreciate the reasons for some of these amendments, and it is to get clarification that I rise to speak on this clause.

I appreciate that some of these clauses are really a reprint of the original Act in existence now. It would appear that there are three accepted groups in this country: The White, the Bantu and Coloured. Then follow the subsidiary groups which are probably five in number, and I shall confine myself to the Coloured section, the Malay group, the Indian group, the Griqua group, and so on. It would appear that under this rule the Chinese of this country are also Coloured people now. The Minister gave an explanation and said that there have been many complaints about people amongst the Coloureds being classified under a group to which they should really not belong. Now, there is nothing in this Act which, in my humble opinion, specifically specifies the evidence which the Secretary must have in order to reclassify. I do not want to start a discussion on ethnic groups in this country, but I should like to ask the Minister to answer a question, not by saying that it depends on whether it is a white parent or a mixed parent, relating to mixed marriages. We have Indian people married to Coloured people by Mahommedan rites, in other words, the State does not recognize that as a legal marriage, and the children belong to the mother legally. Will those children become Coloured?

Not necessarily.

I am raising these questions because the matter is not clear to me. I should like to say by way of explanation that I am approaching this Bill completely from a non-political point of view. I am trying to have a good measure passed and some explanations. I am not talking politics in this matter. The Minister said the following, inter alia, in his Second Reading speech—

I understand the purpose of this amendment. But I am now putting a question which has been put to me as a Coloured representative. What am I to be classified if my father is Indian and my mother is Coloured? Also, what is my position if my father is a Coloured man and my mother is a Malay woman?

Then I see some difficulty in regard to the matter. There are of course certain obvious benefits under the Group Areas Act for people to be Coloured. I raise this matter to ask the hon. the Minister if he can tell me, and I may say that I do not envy the Secretary’s job in this regard, how is the Secretary able to say to which group a person whose lather is Indian and his mother is Coloured shall belong. Because there is nothing contained in this clause to say that if a parent belongs to one ethnic group and the other parent to another ethnic group that the father shall prevail or the mother shall prevail. There is nothing in the Act about this. That has brought a lot of difficulties and a lot of abuse. It seems to me that the Minister should also explain to us the following. In the new section 5 (2) the Minister has brought in the following words, “Or any proclamation purporting to have been issued in terms of this subsection”. In other words, the State President can not only withdraw any proclamation which he has already made, but also any proclamation purporting to have been issued in terms of this subsection which to my way of thinking must create much uncertainty in the minds of the people who have already been classified into an ethnic group. I am referring to subsection (2). Let me just make the matter clear again. “The State President may by proclamation in the Gazette describe and define the ethnic or other groups into which Coloured persons shall be classified”. That I understand. The Minister has now introduced an amendment stating that he can withdraw it and issue another one. Surely, before he does that we should be allowed to know on what grounds there may be a publication, a withdrawal, a republication or a further withdrawal which must bring uncertainty to the people concerned. I realize that the Minister has made an explanation in his Second Reading speech that this is as a result of the decision of the court. It said that the matter was vague and the Minister now wants to say, “I am going to make it so that it will not be vague any more”. That is the reason why he is amending it. I cannot understand why the Minister should, when the State President already has the power to amend and to withdraw any proclamation, go further and say “Or any proclamation purporting to have been issued”. Is the key word “purporting”? I should like the Minister to tell us for what purpose it is necessary. I understand also why there is to be retrospective effect. If a man is classified as a Coloured but he should be classified as an Indian, he should be classified as if it were his original classification. I again raise the question in my Second Reading speech of the provision which says “a person shall be classified as a White person if his natural parents have both been classified as White”. I know of many cases where ether parent died before 1951. The Minister said to me, “Surely people will know whether that mother or father was Coloured or not”. How can a child who was born in 1951 and is now 16 years old, whose mother died at childbirth and who was brought up by a relative, prove whether her mother was accepted as White or not? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall begin with the hon. member for Boland. Apparently the hon. member does not have much objection to the provision in this clause which deals with how a child should be classified if the parents have already been classified. The one direct question he put to me was in respect of the question of the ethnic groups which are dealt with in this clause, and in which it is provided that the State President can promulgate certain proclamations which, in his opinion, may differ from those which existed before these proclamations were declared invalid by the court. The fact of the matter is that the court declared those proclamations invalid precisely as a result of their vagueness, and not because the State President did not have the right to promulgate a proclamation. It was done mainly as a result of their vagueness. To eliminate many reclassifications which would take place in a different way if this were to lapse entirely and the Act were to remain as it is at present, we must revise this. We must grant the State President these powers. We have not yet drawn up those proclamations but the intention at present is to eliminate that so-called vagueness because they did not convey the meaning we thought they did. We classified according to the various ethnic groups in the Coloured community. We are now going to revise those provisions and alter the wording. Then the State President will proclaim them. It is not the intention to make a lot of reclassifications or to abolish them entirely. We shall revise this matter very thoroughly and properly, also bearing in mind what the hon. member for Boland has just said.

The hon. member for Boland made another point. He took as an example one of the ethnic groups in the Coloured community, i.e. the Indians. He mentioned the example of an Indian who had had a child by a Coloured woman. He may have been married or not, but he did admit that the child was his. [Interjections.] Yes, a Malay or a Coloured woman. It makes no difference. That child is with the mother now. The child may be with the mother or with the father or with anybody else for that matter but in that case it is a child of mixed blood as far as this ethnic group is concerned. Their appearance and acceptance will be the deciding factor. If there is proof that the child has been assimilated into the Coloured community and accepted as a Coloured, surely it would be stupid, I think, if the classifiers do not take it into account and subsequently want to make an Indian of that child and place it in an ethnic group where it is not accepted or will not be accepted, or vice versa. In other words, in that case no emphasis at all will be placed on the mixed parentage of the child. Other factors must also be taken into account in order to see that justice is done.

I now want to come to the few remaining arguments. There are so few arguments remaining, and hon. members on this side, to wit the hon. members for Prinshof, Namaqualand and Parow, have replied to such a good effect to the criticism of hon. members on the opposite side that very little remains for me to say which is new and which will not be a repetition. Consequently, Sir, stop me if what I am saying is a repetition, and I shall resume my seat.

The hon. member for Umlazi stated that this legislation in particular is going to perpetuate reclassification in future—in other words, it is precisely our intention to minimize what he said we were now going to do. He asked me when reclassification was going to stop. It is not for me to say when reclassification is one day going to come to an end because there will probably always be cases where people feel that their classification is, according to their own views, and on some grounds or other, incorrect and who will consequently apply to the Secretary for reclassification in terms of section 5 (4). But what I can say is that cases of this nature will occur far more infrequently in future precisely because we are including the classification of the parents in this definition in this legislation. There are perhaps between 1,000 and 2,000 persons who are still not satisfied with their classification although I doubt whether there are so many. This, therefore, is merely a conjectural figure. We are only aware of a few hundred but there may be more who have not yet come forward to ask for reclassification. It is not our intention to close the door to people who feel that they have been incorrectly classified. We do not want to deprive them of the opportunity of having their classification revised.

The hon. member also asked according to what standards the parents were classified. Parents were classified according to the standards laid down in the existing Act, an Act which, according to hon. members on the opposite side, is less punitive than the legislation which we are now considering. That is why we expect them not to complain but rather to thank me for the fact that these stricter provisions will, by their retrospective nature, validate those classifications. This should also be the best proof to them that we do not want to institute a witch hunt. Now I would just like to say something about this witch hunt which everybody on the opposite side is talking about. They have implied that a witch hunt can be instituted on the grounds of the fact that the Secretary can undertake reclassification. It is the same argument they used in 1962. To-day they are repeating that argument, but are merely applying it to different circumstances. Yet a testing and the application of the Act for five years since 1962 has proved that there was no witch hunt whatsoever—not even as far as third-party obections were concerned. But I do not want to elaborate on that at the moment; I shall return to it later.

Would the hon. the Minister give this House an assurance that a case will not be reopened except at the specific request of the person concerned?

No, I am sorry, but I cannot give you that assurance. The law provides that not only persons who are personally involved may have objections to the classification of somebody else. In other words, I am not going to shut the door to anybody who feels justified to bring to the notice of the Secretary that a classification has been made erroneously. I do not want to close the door to the Secretary to go into such cases or, where he cannot make a decision, to pass it on to the Board for investigation and decision. The Board’s decision in such a case will then be a decision made by the Board on behalf of the Secretary.

Do I understand that what the hon. the Minister is permitting here is that there can be third-party objections in an informal manner to the Secretary?

Yes. Only I will not restrict it to third-party objections—I would say any objection whatsoever, whether it comes from a third party or from the person himself.

That has always been possible.

Yes, it can still happen in terms of section 5 (3) of the existing Act.

But your predecessor gave a guarantee on this.

Let me tell the hon. member that the Secretary and other officers have surely made more classifications than the boards or the courts have done. Therefore I do not understand the arguments of the hon. members. In clause 1 they pleaded vehemently for us to give people a chance, but on this clause they are on the other hand pleading vehemently for us not to give them a chance. The amendments moved by hon. members require us to have the cases of people who have made objections revised. On what grounds are they so afraid now that persons who have not yet made objections, but who nevertheless have the same fair objections, should also be afforded an opportunity to obtain revision? I do not know what is wrong with that. One minute they are accusing me of unfairness and the next they are accusing me of being too fair.

That deals with the question of the hon. member for Umlazi in regard to the standards in terms of which parents are classified. I now come to another argument, an argument, which, as I see it, is really the main argument. They are afraid that as the Act stands at present a person cannot ascend to White, but can only go down. The hon. member for Namaqualand has already dealt with this argument, but I want to add that the chairman of the Council for Coloured Affairs, Mr. Schwartz, said at the 13th meeting of that Council (translation)—

I know why Mr. Schwartz said that. He said it because he believed that they had a shortage of qualified persons, persons who could fill the necessary positions now that we are according Coloured interests their rightful place. The report on Mr. Schwartz’s speech reads further (translation)—

Here we have a leader of the Coloureds themselves, stating very clearly that they are also against this policy in regard to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said—

I find that a shocking statement. The obections to this provision, just as to the first, are based on the fact that they do not want us to close this door as far as possible. But it is not a question of one wanting to keep down a man who wants to be white or is entitled to be one. But neither does one want to lift up somebody from below, somebody who belongs there and who cannot be on top. We talk about “hardships” in these cases. Do not think that I am unsympathetic towards these unfortunate people who are in their present position as a result of the sins of their parents and not of their own. But do not think that, if we go the way the United Party wants us to go, we will have less “hardship” of this nature. One will have much more. In this new world in which we are living one cannot expect greater conservatism in this field. One will get greater leniency.

Mixed marriages.

Yes, mixed marriages and all.

The hon. member for Green Point asked me whether each person who had been classified ran the risk of being reclassified. I do not think he runs the risk of being reclassified.

It is possible under the Act.

No, it is possible that some of them may in fact run the risk of being classified if there are sufficient reasons and if proof can be adduced that they were in fact incorrectly classified. I have mentioned an example. Do not think that it is always the dark-skinned people only, or those who we now regard as being incorrectly classified as Whites, whom we want to make non-Whites. I mentioned the case of a non-white person who had always been classified as white and who had a white identity card. He had been classified in that way as a result of the census, but never in his life had he wanted to be white. He wanted to make use of white facilities which non-Whites did perhaps not have, but he was satisfied to be a non-white. Lie belonged to a non-white trade union. He was a leader amongst them. But he was classified as white. Attention has now been drawn to such a case. The Secretary will now take steps. He will call him in. He will look to see whether he must be reclassified. Is he not going to make that man and his family happier if his case is finally settled? As the Act provides at the moment his children will in any case be classified as Coloureds, because he is married to a non-white. I think therefore that that argument of the hon. member for Green Point is unfounded. It is a supposition and not an argument. He asked whether it was legal for white and non-white to marry in terms of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, because the provisions are not precisely the same. I confirm that. An hon. member on the opposite side brought a case to me this morning of a magistrate in Durban asking whether I could not do something to have the wife of a white man, a man who had been classified as white, reclassified. He came to the magistrate and said that he wanted to marry a non-white woman, a woman who had been classified as non-white and who had a non-white identity card. They gave the magistrate the identity card and told him about the classification. They already have a child. He admitted that, even before he decided to marry her, he knew that she had a non-white identity card and had been classified as non-white. But he still wanted to marry her nevertheless. They were subsequently married. The rest of his family is white. She is reasonably white and may perhaps pass for white in Durban in certain circles. But she then showed the magistrate a few sworn statements from four or five people, from her employers and her former employers, stating that they had accepted and treated her as white. Those were the associations she wanted to prove, seeing that she wanted to marry. They also know about this Act now. The request now is: In view of the children who may still be born and the one who is already there, cannot I classify them as White? Her parents live as Coloureds, her other sisters all live as Coloureds in the neighbourhood. The evidence is there from members of the family circle and others in the neighbourhood where she grew up with them that they will never accept her as a white person. So one gets the two kinds. The request is never that I should have the man declared a non-White, but I am always being requested to have the non-White declared a White. In this case I do not see my way clear to doing so. To my regret—and I must say I am sorry—I cannot do it, because what is going to happen then? Parents and children—or at least one of them —are going to be separated from one another, because the children of this marriage are going to be Coloured. But they knew it when they got married.

What about the man?

The man is going to remain White. He was not incorrectly classified. She was not incorrectly classified. They were both correctly classified. In other words, here is a case now where two people—in the case which the hon. member for Green Point mentioned—because the provisions of the Marriages Act are not precisely as strict as as these, get married legally in terms of the Marriages Act, but with the calculated risk that their children are going to be Coloured. If a man’s love, or whatever you like to call it, wants to run away with him to this extent, then the parents must also accept responsibility for the pain—I almost want to say disaster— which they will bring upon their children. I do not know what it will all entail, just as little as they do. There are such cases, and I want to admit it, but I cannot make provision for those cases, for exceptions in the Act. If I wanted to make provision for that, and I were to accept the hon. member’s amendment, then this reclassification story is never going to reach an end and then we may as well forget about putting a stop to or overcoming this creeping integration of non-White to White.

The hon. member for Mayfair made an appeal here in regard to a case which I am well acquainted with. That is really a difficult case and one in regard to which a person would really like to do something if one could. It will not be possible to change this case by means of this measure. As far as the children to which the hon. member referred, and those to which I referred are concerned, it may perhaps be that they may not all of them be accepted by the Whites as Whites throughout their lives. I am talking now about the public, the community, society. In certain respects the community and society can sometimes be very cruel. Some children may be accepted as Whites, others not. I know of cases where brothers and sisters from the same household do not accept each other. The one brother, for example, does not call the other “boetie” but “tottie”, or something else. Such cases do occur. It shows one how hard public opinion, society and life can sometimes be. They were born of the same parents, but because the one is whiter than the other, they do not accept one another because the darker one does not to the other appear to be a child of their mutual parents.

I think the hon. member for Wynberg has received a final answer in regard to the objections which she raised in the reply which the hon. member for Prinshof gave her. Therefore I will not go into that matter.

The hon. member for Musgrave spoke about the right of the Secretary to classify. I have dealt with that.

What about the case to which I made specific reference? Will the Minister be prepared to give an assurance that in such a case the classification of the child will be changed?

In the case mentioned by the hon. member, that will of course take place. It is the case which has a bearing on the Secretary. The parents were classified as White and the children as Coloured, and the Secretary did not see his way clear to reclassifying the child. In terms of these provisions, whether the Secretary has refused or not. those parents can, on behalf of their child, or the child can himself …

Or the parents can be reclassified.

No, no, that will not happen.

Yes—the Secretary can do it.

No. It was never the Secretary’s intention to reclassify those parents. If they now make application for their child to be reclassified, since they are both classified as White, then I say it is all very well. Legally the hon. member for Green Point may be right that the Secretary may say that a certain case came to his attention and that he is now merely reclassifying the parents.

He can do it now.

His decision is final. The parents who have been reclassified in this way. have the right to appeal. They can then, if the Secretary has reclassified them, go to the board and from thence to the court. The court may accuse the Secretary of mala fides. In other words, it cannot be done so easily. If we consider how the Secretary and the officialdom has administered this Act since its inception—and it is a difficult Act—then I feel that we are making too much of the possibility of infringements by these people as far as the provisions of the measure are concerned. My contention is that the Secretary will not be able to refuse if those parents make application for the reclassification or revision of the classification of their child. He will not be able to refuse to revise it. If he feels that the data at his disposal is still just as indefinite and he does not want to make himself guilty of an injustice under this Act, I think he would refer it to the Board to undertake classification on his behalf. That is what I would have done if I were in his shoes. It would mean that it would never be possible to say that he had changed his opinion or that he had taken the responsibility upon himself of taking such an important decision. He would prefer to leave it to the Board.

May I ask the Minister, arising from his reply, the following question: The Minister has suggested that in the case I have mentioned he would advise the Secretary to refer this to the board. What is the difficulty? Both parents have been classified as White, the child’s birth certificate shows the child as White, what is the problem, why should this be referred to the board, why can the child not be classified as White straightaway?

I do not think that the hon. member understood me correctly. I said that there are two ways open to the Secretary. I did not say that I would advise him to do this or that in this type of case. I cannot tell him what to do and how to do it because I do not classify. I am sure that it can be left at that, namely, to tell the parents to apply again for the reclassification of that child. If they are not treated to their satisfaction, well, you can then approach me.

When I put the point that the parents could be reclassified by the Secretary the Minister said they would then have the right of appeal to the Race Classification Board. Does the Minister then intend altering this clause, because in another clause he proposes to delete the provisions of section 11 in so far as any reclassification is concerned. In other words, he deletes the right of appeal?

Order! The hon. member must put the question only.

The reply to the hon. member’s question is as follows. It will depend upon when those people have become aware of their classification. Only those people who do not object within 30 days after they themselves become aware of their classification, or people who have not, within the same year, received condonation from the Minister, only they can go on appeal. People who were late, people who made third party objections, cannot go on appeal. In their cases the board’s decision is final. To make it easier: Suppose for example the Secretary were for various reasons, such as for example that certain information had subsequently come to his attention, to reclassify a person. Then surely he must notify that person of his reclassification. That person in turn has the right to appeal, within 30 days or within a year, whichever the case may be. It is then a case of an altered classification. It is not one of which he was originally aware; it is a reclassification. If he is dissatisfied with that he has the right to appeal.

Mr. Chairman, after listening to the hon. the Minister I am becoming more and more convinced that we are trying to define what is indefinable, and because it is indefinable we are trying to circumscribe it with a set of rules and conditions which will not work. And the hon. the Minister knows that they will not work. That is why he has virtually substituted the Secretary for the courts. The courts were the places where these cases were determined before. Now he has substituted the Secretary who shall determine whether this shall be investigated or not, whether it should be changed or not. Why has the Minister done that? It is because the existing legislation would not stand the test of the courts in so far as the Minister wants it to stand. That is why it is being changed. He knows that this amending Bill will not stand the test of the courts; so he is substituting the Secretary as the first court of appeal. I accept that there is a court to which an appeal lies at a later stage. But this is what he is doing. Let us see what is going to actuate the Secretary in making a reclassification. What actuates him? The new section 5 (4), inserted by clause 2 of the Bill, starts off with the words, “If at any time it appears to the Secretary …”. But the Minister says that I am wrong. This affects the right of appeal at any time by the parents in this particular case to apply for the reclassification of their child. There is nothing in this Bill which makes the Secretary reclassify or even attempt to do so.

He can consider it and if he decides to do so, he does so, otherwise he refuses it. The right of appeal is, in terms of this Bill, still limited to a period of thirty days from the date of classification. Reclassification is limited to whether the Secretary wants to do it, but only in the case where it has not been before a board, only in those cases when the dicision has not been made by a board. That is all.

It is exactly the same as under the old Act.

No, of course it is not the same. It is not the same.

It is.

If the Minister looks at the new section 11 (b) inserted by clause 4 of this Bill he can see that this has been introduced. The Secretary can refer a case to the board or he can alter it himself after giving notice. This is the position. It has been altered slightly in wording.

No.

Of course, it has.

Order!

I do not want to argue with the Minister across the floor. The Minister has now indicated that one of the things that will actuate the Secretary is a third-party appeal, which is being removed from existing legislation by this Bill. So he admits that the Secretary might well be actuated to move on a reclassification by the intervention of a third party. What kind of a witch-hunt is the Minister going to start here.

That has always been the position.

Because now the third party will appeal to the Secretary and the Secretary will do the investigation and the reclassification if he feels like doing it. What about the undertaking which the Minister’s predecessor gave to this Parliament and to this country?

I am not my predecessor, and circumstances are different.

Now we come to it! Never let this hon. Minister try and give us an assurance that this or that will not happen. Here he is repudiating the assurances his predecessor gave when he gave this House and the Republic of South Africa …

What?

The undertaking that this power to investigate would be used in one circumstance, and one only, and that was to investigate the descent of a Bantu. That was the assurance of his predecessor and if he wants me to give him the Hansard reference, I will give it to him.

You are talking of descent again. You jump from one stone to another. One never knows what you are dealing with.

No, I am not. I am discussing the provisions of this clause.

Then do not talk about descent.

No, I am talking about investigations.

You are talking about descent.

No. the Minister does not even understand the Bill.

Weren’t you referring to the Secretary’s powers under the new section 5 (4), now being provided for, which deals with reclassification? Because then I interjected and said it was exactly the same power that he has under the Act as it now reads, namely in terms of the present section 5 (3), except for the provision included in paragraph (b), namely that he can refer the matter to a board for decision. That is all. That is the only difference.

And that there will be no right of appeal.

Yes.

The Minister is right basically, but what he forgets is this, that the right of appeal of a third party to the court for reclassification is now deleted, and instead it is channelled through the Secretary. This is what the position now is. So, as the Minister himself in his reply said, a third party can now go to the Secretary, the Secretary will now investigate it, and if the Secretary is satisfied he will do one of two things: He will exercise his existing right, if the person has not been classified by a board, to notify them that he is going to change their classification. That is his existing right—we are not arguing about that. This is not a point in question. The other thing he can do is refer it to a board. The point I am making is this. If a third party goes to the Secretary what is he going to do? He is going to investigate the matter, and the Minister said “yes, of course he is going to investigate it.” What did I say to that? I said that the Minister is going to start a great big witch-hunt whereby the Secretary is going to investigate now not only one aspect but all of these aspects, including descent.

No.

He must.

The Secretary has done that since 1950.

No, no, he has not investigated descent since 1950, because the Act did not require him to do it.

Descent has nothing to do with it.

But descent is included in this very clause. [Interjections]. Let the hon. the Minister be quiet for a minute. He says that descent does not come into it at all. How foolish can he be. Descent is included in this clause: The new section 5 (5) says that if both parents are white, a person shall be classified as white, and if one parent is coloured, a person shall be classified as coloured. Is that not descent? The Minister must not be so stupid!! What has the Secretary got to investigate if a third party comes to him? On what grounds will a third party go to him? He might say that a person is not white by descent and the Secretary then has to investigate it. If he is going to change a man’s classification or appeal to a board he has to investigate the man’s descent.

No, his classification.

Because this Bill and this clause says that he has to do so. Because he has to determine the matter. The first thing he has to do if that person is classified as white or as anything else he has to find out what the parents are, because this is what it says.

Nonsense, you are talking nonsense. He has to find out what the classification of the parents is.

In the application of this section … [Interjections.] Let me read the Minister the Bill. I ask the hon. the Minister only to listen. The new section 5 (5) reads as as follows—

In application of this section—

1. (a) a person shall be classified as a white person if his natural parents have both been classified as white persons …

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the United Party accuses the hon. the Minister and the Government of being set on a witch hunt. That is because they are in fact always engaged in one. They are always engaged in a hunt to make Whites Coloureds … [Interjections.] I shall prove why. It has been alleged here that the provisions in this clause were worthless. The provisions have in fact become necessary because the hon. member for Musgrave set only two conditions the other night. He said that if a person claimed to be a White …

And if he asks.

Yes, and if he asks to be one, and the community in which he moves says, yes, they accept him as a White, then he is White. That is the only condition he sets.

No, also if he is accepted in the community.

Yes, by the community; he said that explicitly. The hon. member on this side explained in what community that may be. I want to go further. He need not only be a Coloured. It may be that a Bantu who moves among a certain poor class of Whites is accepted by them as a White. And now the United Party wants to make him a White because he claims to be one and because he is accepted as one. They say these things because they will not recognize the colour bar. During the Second Reading Debate the hon. member for Wynberg said and admitted that she helped to make Coloureds Whites because she was a woman and was consequently sympathetic to those people.

No, I never said that.

It is in fact as a result of the attitude of hon. members on that side of the House, and of other people like them, that it has become necessary to insert this provision in the Act. If it had not been for that, it may perhaps not have been necessary and could perhaps have waited a few years. But it is in fact as a result of the attitude of that side of the House that these amendments have become necessary. The United Party does not fear that Whites will become Coloureds in the ordinary sense of the word. The hon. member who has just sat down emphasized once again that it is nonsensical that a child should be a Coloured if one parent is White and the other a Coloured. What is a child other than a Coloured if he has parents of both groups? Surely he cannot be anything but a Coloured? Even if he is a fair-skinned Coloured, he still remains a Coloured. That is why this clause is placed on the Statute Book. The clause confers certain rights on the Secretary and provides under what circumstances the Secretary may reclassify cases.

Progress reported.