I want to inform hon. members of the work for next week. On Monday the House will deal with legislation, and we will start off with the Population Registration Amendment Bill. On Tuesday and Wednesday we will deal with the Votes, and possibly on Thursday and Friday we will again deal with legislation.

I also take this opportunity of welcoming my colleague and friend the Minister of Indian Affairs back to the House. We are all very pleased that he is much better, and we hope that his health is completely restored.

When this debate was adjourned we had indicated from this side of the House that we intended supporting the second reading and that we welcomed the provisions of the Bill. One of the reasons why we welcome the provisions is that there is obviously a need for this type of legislation. This legislation is the result of a considerable amount of study by a work study group which was appointed by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. J. J. Serfontein, to study legislation for the protection of the aged. We now have the Bill before us, and it is more or less in line with the recommendations of that work group. There are certain provisions that require closer scrutiny, but we believe that the Committee Stage will be the correct place to bring about more elucidation in regard to the provisions of the Bill. As far as the need for the Bill is concerned, I think all of us as members of this House from time to time have to deal with problems affecting the aged. Only recently I had a letter from a pensioner which I think indicates the necessity for this Bill. This person was living in a sort of home for the aged run by a private individual for profit, and there were three people sharing each room. There was a total of nine aged persons living in that home, which was an old house, and these people were undoubtedly subjected to exploitation in regard to the accommodation and the food provided to the inmates. I do not intend wearying the House by quoting from this letter, but I did refer the letter to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions in Durban and asked that some steps should be taken to ensure that some alleviation is accorded to those persons residing in that so-called home for the aged.

In terms of this Bill, one of the important provisions will bring about compulsory registration for such homes which provide accommodation for aged persons and who are defined in the first clause. One of the important points here is that all racial groups are included under the definition of an aged person. There is one small point, and that is that, in terms of the definition of an aged person, after defining a white person and a Coloured person, the Indian and the Bantu, there is a new provision for the Chinese person. Perhaps the Minister could tell us the reason as to why the Chinese group is now defined as a separate group in terms of this Bill. I think this is the first Bill of this nature which defines the Chinese as a group.

The provisions of this Bill, particularly the first few clauses, indicate the manner in which registration shall take place and ways and means whereby exploitation can be obviated. If we look at the main principles behind it, we believe that it is in the interest of these aged persons to be afforded such protection. We know that there are certain other Acts on our Statute Book, such as the Children’s Act, which provide for the protection of children who are found to be in need of care. Here a certain group of aged persons can now also be defined as being in need of care, and therefore it is obvious that some provision should be made for these people. The compulsory registration and regular inspection of these homes for the aged should to a great extent be able to eliminate the exploitation which is taking place at present. However, there are certain other powers the Minister takes in terms of this Bill, such as to close down a home for the aged. This is an importnat aspect because it is related to the shortage of accommodation for these aged persons, which is within their means. I believe that the Minister will have to expedite provision for the accommodation of the aged by other departments like the Department of Community Development and also by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions to ensure that existing homes which are of a satisfactory standard and nature should either be enlarged, or that additional homes should be built; because one of the results of this Bill could be the closing down of some undesirable homes for the aged, those run by private individuals or companies for profit. The problem will arise that these people will have to have alternative accommodation once such a place is closed down. I believe that this could aggravate the position, but at the same time I realize that it is necessary to ensure that these people are granted protection against exploitation. The finding of alternative accommodation, I believe, will be an important effect of this Bill. It has been felt by a large number of welfare organizations, many of them with vast experience of field work in regard to the aged, that statutory provision should have been made in this Bill for the removal of an aged person should it be found to be in the interest of such aged person to be so removed. A person may have reached a stage of mental and physical decline and be living under circumstances not conducive to a happy life, but the welfare workers find that the ordinary methods of persuasion do not have the desired effect of having such a person placed either in an institution or in a hospital where he can receive further care. Many of these organizations made representations to the work group which studied this legislation, which reported that they were not able to accede to that request for reasons of self-determination and the safeguarding of the interests of the individual. I believe those are very important observations which were made in the report of this work group, and they were also repeated by the hon. the Minister when he introduced the Bill as being one of the reasons why he was not prepared to accept that recommendation from these welfare organizations. I am inclined to agree with the Minister and with the report of the work group in this regard. That work group consisted of eminent people in the field of welfare, and obviously they are a group of persons who would not lightly come to a decision on such an important matter. Obviously, to remove a person from his home environment is a drastic step. However, at the same time I believe that cognizance must be taken of the practical aspect of the work of these welfare workers, and I believe that it might be advisable for the Minister to reconsider this aspect, perhaps in two years’ time, after the Bill has been promulgated and has been in operation for some time, to see whether it might not be necessary to grant that statutory power to welfare workers to enable them after due investigation to remove that person in his own interest. As I said before, the Children’s Act, which is regarded as a children’s charter, does make that provision, and there are cases where these aged persons have reached the stage where they require the protection of experienced people who can assist them. So I hope the Minister will not close the door entirely to this proposal which was made by important organizations which have a great deal of practical experience of dealing with the aged.

The number of persons accommodated in these homes for the aged also shows that in South Africa generally only 4.8 per cent of the total number of old age and war veteran pensioners are living in homes for the aged. We realize that when once this Bill is passed and registration of homes for the aged becomes necessary by law, there will be a far larger number who will live in homes for the aged. However, generally speaking, the majority of these aged persons manage to live on their own, and in the present economic circumstances prevailing in the country at the moment these people have a very difficult time indeed in living on their own and having to fend for themselves, because invariably the funds they have put aside for their old age now prove to be inadequate due to the decrease in the purchasing power of their money. It would appear that the general trend in South Africa to-day is that the aged person tries not to reach the stage where it is necessary for him to be accommodated in a home for the aged. I believe that that is another important aspect of our welfare work, that we should at all times try to see that these people remain within the community. Many of them, when they reach the stage where they have to move into a home for the aged, find later that the home cannot provide accommodation for them any longer, and they then have to be admitted to a hospital for the chronically ill, or some other institution. Psychologically they then believe that they are reaching the end of the road and thereafter they deteriorate mentally more rapidly. Therefore, we must find ways and means of encouraging these people to remain in the community, and I believe that the other important principle contained in this Bill must then play a part, and that is the question of the subsidization of homes for the aged and the subsidization of welfare services and of clubs for the aged. These are all aspects which are most important in our present set-up for administering welfare services, which depend on the State and on private welfare organizations. Therefore, the subsidization of these organizations is of prime importance. Under clause 2, as well as the State having the right to establish homes for the aged itself, it also provides for subsidization of homes for the aged. I believe that where possible the establishment of homes for the aged by the State should not be encouraged, and that it should rather be left to welfare organizations and to the private initiative of those people who wish to assist the aged. However, the subsidization of these organizations is of vital importance. Obviously an organization cannot achieve its main objects if it continually has to raise funds and continually struggles against a lack of finances. I feel that this subsidization must be extended. On 11.th April, 1967, I asked the hon. the Minister whether he intended granting subsidies to two particular types of service which are now being rendered by specific church organizations and in some instances by welfare organizations. I refer here to the meals-on-wheels service and the home help service administered by welfare organizations. In terms of clause 2 of the Bill, subsidies may be granted to homes for the aged, clubs, service centres for aged persons and welfare organizations providing welfare services to the aged and to debilitated persons. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give the House the assurance that the provisions of clause 2 will permit him, if he should so desire at a future date, to grant financial assistance to these organizations which are providing this additional service. It is, I believe, a welfare service and a most important one. I wish to mention it here again because it has a direct bearing on the question of being able to keep aged persons within a community, and here I am thinking mainly of the ordinary aged person who is having to struggle to-day because of financial circumstances; I am not dealing here with the frail aged. Other members on this side of the House will deal in a little more detail with that type of aged person. The two are linked together. When one reads the report of the South African Council for the Welfare of the Aged one finds that specific reference is made to the meals-on-wheels service. These organizations, some of which are run by private welfare organizations and one by a church, assist aged persons by ensuring that they have at least one nourishing meal a day. The Council says on page 6 of its annual report—

Sir, this meals-on-wheels service does provide a close contact between the welfare organization, the welfare worker and the aged person. Their experience shows that it is possible to delay the admission of the aged to homes for the aged. Sir, based on a similar principle is the home help service, under which arrangements are made to assist these people in their every-day chores, such as washing, bathing and the preparation of light meals, and generally speaking keeping contact with the aged person. Here too the National Council for the Care of the Aged pays high tribute to the organizations administering these services. But these organizations have to find the funds to run the service, and I believe that under clause 2 of this bill, if the hon. the Minister is empowered to do so, he should seriously consider the question of greater subsidization of these welfare organizations and services which are playing an important part in making the life of the aged person a happier one. The hon. the Minister referred in his introductory speech to the loneliness which many of these aged persons suffered. These two services, the meals-on-wheels service and the home help service, keep the aged person in contact with the community. I feel that it is a great asset to our welfare services in South Africa generally to have such services which see to it that these old people are kept happy and that their sense of loneliness is dispelled to a certain extent.

Clause 2 of the bill, which makes provision for the necessary subsidization also mentions the question of homes for the aged. I do not wish to deal in detail at this stage with the question of the subsidisation of homes for the aged, but obviously we on this side of the House wholeheartedly support the principle that this assistance should be given to these organizations.

Sir, the other important principle involved in this bill is that it repeals the Old Age Pensions Act of 1962. In 1962, of course, the Old Age Pensions Act was brought up to date and consolidated as well as amended. We know that towards the end of almost every session we have a bill placed before us which usually brings about various amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act, and the other pensions Acts. The House then has an opportunity of discussing the various amendments which are proposed and many of Which flow from announcements made by the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech as far as concessions for the aged persons are concerned. Sir. that is an important part of the administration of welfare services, particularly so far as the care of the aged is concerned because I believe that it does give hon. members an opportunity to scrutinise the proposed amendments, particularly those concerning the means test if the means plus pension limitation is altered in any way. Hon. members have an important part to play in scrutinizing those amendments. At the same time it also gives publicity to the various amendments. I think it is a great pity that there are so many aged persons and people who are close to the retirement age who are completely ignorant of their rights in terms of the various pensions Act, and it does help these people to understand what their rights are when publicity is given in this way to amendments to the Act. I realize that there are certain difficulties involved. We have other pensions Acts applying to civil pensioners and so forth and which are amended by way of regulation. From the point of view of bringing about a better understanding of the pension laws, I do not think it would be wise to bring about amendments merely by way of regulation as is proposed in clause 20. However, it does appear that there are certain advantages to be obtained because the hon. the Minister will now be able to bring about amendments of an administrative nature by way of regulation, particularly amendments affecting the means test. I do not think that aged persons will become any more aware of their rights as far as the means test is concerned if the means test were amended only in terms of the Act, as is being done under the existing system. We know that certain aspects of the means test are already being dealt with by way of regulation. The principle involved is one which requires thought and we on this side of the House have come to the conclusion that we should accept the principle which is in line with the principle contained in other pensions Acts. However, I do hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give an assurance to the House that all such regulations will receive the fullest publicity so that members of this House and people interested in the welfare of the aged can become fully conversant with the regulations. I believe it will also be in the interests of the people concerned if the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions from time to time issued a simplified pamphlet or booklet setting out details of the means test so that people will be fully aware of the legal provisions relating to it.

But you usually do that even before I have an opportunity to do so.

Sir, I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that he has not been Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions very long and that three years ago I made a similar plea to his predecessor, the hon. J. J. Serfontein, and although the then Minister gave an undertaking that he would investigate the possibility of issuing such a booklet—I even produced a rough draft of the booklet which I suggested should be issued— nothing further happened, and when the Pensions Act was amended to a very great extent as from 1st October, 1965 and there was still no publication from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions I decided, because I myself and many others were being inundated with inquiries, that the only way to do it would be to do it myself. It was not an attempt on my part to take over the task of the Department of Social Welfare. I only did it because the Department had failed to do so. I might add that I did this at considerable personal expense. I would be very grateful if the hon. the Minister and his Department would be prepared to take on the task of issuing such a booklet. It would certainly relieve me and others of a great deal of work which has to be undertaken when these people make inquiries.

You should sell them the copyright.

Sir, in terms of clause 20 the means test is to be laid down mainly by way of regulation. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he intends to bring this bill into operation shortly. It is very difficult to discuss the various proposals affecting pensioners in the Budget debate because the Budget debate covers such a very wide field. I feel that the date of commencement of this legislation should therefore be indicated so that we will be able to discuss the concessions in terms of the latest Budget proposals, under the Vote of the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. If there is not to be an amending bill this session to bring about the necessary alterations which arise from concessions made by the hon. the Minister of Finance, then we must discuss the matter under the Vote of the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. That would appear to be the appropriate opportunity for us to discuss the various proposals involving a relaxation of the means test or any other proposals announced in the Budget speech insofar as social pensioners are concerned. We do not wish to lose the opportunity of discussing this matter with the Minister because there are important aspects which require discussion.

In conclusion I would like to say that we on this side of the House obviously regard this Bill as a constructive piece of legislation which will be to the benefit of a group of persons who deserve protection and whose present plight is viewed with sympathy by many hon. members of this House. We are always pleased to welcome any step which gives greater protection to these people, and since we believe that this measure is in the interest of the aged and of the country and the community as a whole we support the second reading.

With the Bill we now have before the House we have reached a most important milepost. Involuntarily one recalls some years ago when we dealt here with an outstanding item of legislation with regard to the care and protection of children, and to-day we are dealing with legislation which is quite on a par with that legislation in quality and scope. If we recall the long road we have travelled to reach the comprehensive legislation we are dealing with this morning, we think of all those who cooperated in the past 17 years to prepare this Bill for us. In 1950, at the instance of the Department of Social Welfare, the first national conference on the welfare of the aged was held in Bloemfontein. That conference gave rise to the recommendation by the then Minister that a continuation committee be appointed to pursue this matter. The minister acted accordingly and in 1951 that committee was appointed, and that resulted in the establishment of the South African National Council for the Welfare of the Aged, which was appointed in 1965. Further research was undertaken on the problems of the aged, and here I am referring to the National Bureau for Educational and Scientific Research, which published a most important report after they had enquired into the living conditions of the aged. That report was published in 1962. After that the final step was taken through the appointment of the work group on the aged persons’ protection legislation. That work group carried out a most penetrating enquiry and consisted of very capable persons, and that enquiry resulted in the comprehensive legislation we have before us this morning. We are here dealing with legislation initiated by the Department and developed by the best intellects in this particular field. We cannot refrain from expressing our sincere appreciation of the legislation we have before us this morning. I should like to point out that the work group enquired into the legislation in force in other Western countries in this regard, and the work group has satisfied us that this measure is the first comprehensive legislation in the entire Western world to deal with the problem in this way. If we study this Bill carefully we see that it opens the door to us to set the highest standard in the Western world as far as the care and protection of the aged is concerned. With reference to this Bill I should like to point out briefly the problems we are dealing with in the case of certain aged persons. Not all aged persons actually need the protection of this Bill. If we consider the aged persons, we may say that this problem is one which is growing continually, because the numbers are increasing all the time. In 1904 aged persons above 65 represented 1.87 per cent of the population; in 1931 the percentage was 4.29 of the population; in 1960 it was 6.65 per cent. This is clear proof that the number is increasing, and what is that attributable to? One of the factors is the population increase, of course, but another important factor is the higher life expectancy as a result of more effective medical care and treatment of the aged. We must remember that the number of aged persons requiring care is larger. but that there are also other additional factors which necessitate greater care and protection for our aged people. Formerly our aged people were more independent and more popular in society, but we are dealing with a society which has changed completely as far as its structure is concerned. As a result of industrialization and urbanization one finds that the number of aged people who are independent is becoming smaller and smaller. They simply cannot afford it financially and what is more, their children, who previously took care of them, cannot afford it any longer, and the problem now arises that these people are going to need protection by the State to an ever-increasing extent. In terms of percentages the number of aged persons is small; it is only six per cent; it seems small, but if one looks at the numbers one finds that there are upwards of 300,000 of them. If we divided those people into their various categories, we may say that one group is self-reliant. We welcome the latest trend in the industrial sphere and also in the Public Service to raise the age of retirement in order that we may utilize the services of these people somewhat longer and in order that they may remain independent somewhat longer. We are grateful that even our pension laws provide that those people shall receive higher pensions if they start drawing their pensions at a later stage. The State and society are encouraging our people more and more to keep working longer. To the aged persons this is of the utmost importance, because then they remain in the community for longer; they feel longer that they have a useful function to perform. We wish this could happen to a larger and increasing extent, for although we may appoint a younger man in the stead of an aged person, these people have mature experience and knowledge of the particular techniques. They are very useful to us, particularly in times such as these, when we experience a great shortage of man-power. These are the first group I wanted to mention, but then there is a second group, and these are the people who earned their own pensions through contributions to insurance schemes. Through methods of their own those people provided for the day when they will no longer be able to work, and they are at present independent to a large extent. But then there is another group, who are in good physical health but who cannot make ends meet financially, and these are the old-age pensioners about whom we are concerned in these times because they have few means at their disposal to be able to provide for themselves. For the totally debilitated there is provision in hospitals and other places. But let us take just this one group, these old-age pensioners. One of the most important things in life is that one should at least have a decent place to live, and if we ask where these aged persons live. I say on the basis of research carried out by the Bureau to which I referred a moment ago that 68 per cent of these people live in their own houses, or with children or in rooms or in boarding houses: 25 per cent live with relatives or with their children; two per cent live with strangers and five per cent live in homes for the aged. We should not labour under the impression that this legislation means that the State wishes to éncourage the establishment of homes for the aged as a solution to the problem of caring for our aged persons. On the contrary, the State and all of us should like to see those aged people drawn into society on a more extensive scale. It is much better that they should live with their children and relatives who appreciate them, who give them the warmth of home life, who give them proper care, who see to it that they do not become withdrawn, as aged people are inclined to do, but that they have a specific function, that the grandfather remains an important figure in family life on whose experience everybody in the family draws, a person who is popular in society and in the family group. This would certainly be the ideal, and this is what we are all in favour of, but we should remember that as a result of changed circumstances this is not always possible, and consequently we find that a certain percentage of these people cannot live with their relatives, that they cannot fulfil that function in society, that they are compelled to live with some stranger or that they have to be admitted to some home for the aged. This Government has a very fine record as regards the establishment of such homes for the aged. I just want to point out that when the Department of Social Welfare took over poor relief from the provinces in 1940, there were only ten subsidized homes for Whites. In 1951 the number had grown to 32: in 1961 to 73: and to-day, in 1967, 120 have been completed and some 30 or more are being built. These homes, when all of them are completed, will accommodate a total of 10,000 persons. These are all subsidized homes, for which we are very grateful. In the 1964-’65 financial year the Department’s subsidies in respect of homes for the aged and their inmates, in the form of per capita allowances, furnishings and equipment, the acquisition of existing buildings and interest and redemption, amounted to R425,000. This figure proves that the Department is doing everything in its ability to place these people in proper homes for the aged. If we consider the various homes for the aged, we find the subsidized homes to which I have just referred: we find homes for the aged which are under the aegis of churches of welfare organizations: but then we find a third group of homes which are homes for personal profit, homes where a man or a woman take a small number of aged persons under their care. These aged persons pay them for their board and care out of their pensions. We know that some of those homes do very important and most outstanding work, but unfortunately we also know that there are some of those homes where the aged person is exploited and unjustly treated, and where it does not pay him to protection because he receives no protection there. What are the requirements for the proper accommodation of aped person? We may study countries throughout the world and see what the position is in other countries where they devote themselves to research in respect of the accommodation of the aged. The first requirement is that the home for the aged should provide a roof for the aged person; certain facilities have to be provided to make these people feel secure and contented and that they enjoy protection; there must be proper feeding but the most important of all is spiritual care of these aged persons. We are grateful that in the psychological field more and more research is being undertaken in respect of this problem to ascertain what the spiritual condition of people is once they reach a certain age and what the deficiencies are that have to be met. It has been found that certain features always became evident in the case of aged persons— withdrawal, for example. The aged person is inclined to withdraw from society, to isolate himself and to lead a morbid kind of existence. He feels terribly lonely, because the contacts he used to have are no longer there. His old friends have died or have gone away, and he is a lonely figure who is inclined to feel that he is not liked, that society no longer needs his existence, and this frequently causes retrogression, with the result that such persons eventually tend to lose their self-respect. If one wishes to care for and accommodate the aged person, it is necessary that one should take cognizance of this important phenomenon and should provide for it, and that is in fact what this legislation is doing. If we study clause 2 properly, we see that it not only empowers the Minister to subsidize homes for the aged but also clubs and other service centres, in order to promote the spiritual care and the spiritual rehabilitation of the aged person where necessary, and that is why we say that this legislation is a most important step forward. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that there are certain homes for the aged which are in private hands, which are established for personal profit, it is essential. if we have the interests of the aged at heart, to see to it that those homes are registered and that control is exercised; that a certain standard is laid down and that inspections are carried out to insure that that standard is maintained. If we do that, we are giving the aged person proper care and protection. These are all things which are envisaged in this legislation, and for that reason I think this legislation has a message. In the first place it is a message of gratitude to the Minister and the Department and to all concerns that have co-operated to produce this legislation in its final form. This Bill has been circulated among the various regional welfare councils, all the universities, all the concerns that have an interest in this matter. In their turn those bodies and concerns sent the Bill, accompanied by constructive suggestions, to the National Welfare Council, where these were studied and sifted meticulously and what we have before us to-day is what was left after improvements had been made. I feel that we should also convey our gratitude to all welfare organizations, all concerns and all individuals that made constructive suggestions to help formulate this legislation. But this Bill also contains a message to the aged in the Republic—namely that the Government and the Republic of South Africa have their interests at heart; that we are not thrusting them aside but are telling them that they are still a great asset to us and a most important link. For that reason we still need them and we want to keep them with us even longer; we want them to be and stay part of our society. This Bill contains a message of appreciation to our aged persons and gives them the assurance that their interests will be taken care of to an increasing extent. The work group recommended that this be done and said that the tendency to provide effectively for the welfare of the aged had been typical of Government policy for many years—the improvement of benefits to pensioners, the relaxation of the means test and the expansion of provision for homes for the aged, and subsidies for welfare services in the community. All these things are examples of this policy trend. That is why we say that this comprehensive Bill will provide for both the material and the spiritual needs of our aged persons. We are grateful that we may all witness the discussion of this Bill in this House.

This legislation is not contentious in nature. Apart from one or two, the hon. member for Kimberley (South) made no contentious statements. In fact, he made matters difficult for me because he has to a large extent covered the ground I intended covering. I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to adopt a somewhat broader approach to the matter—otherwise I shall be guilty of repetition.

From time to time legislation of intrinsic importance appears before this hon. House—I mean legislation which has a vital effect on a large and important sector of our community. The legislation we have before us now is of that nature. Here we are dealing with our aged —that group of people who are in the twilight of their lives after each of them has, according to ability, made a contribution and played a role in South Africa; a group of people who now. frequently as a result of circumstances beyond their control, need the protection of the larger community. That is what this legislation relates to. Consequently we accept the principles of this legislation and we support the principles. Having said that. I hope you will allow me to motivate this attitude.

I think I may state that there is a direct connection, a statistically significant relationship between, on the one hand, the attention and the amount of money a community bestows on the less privileged and weaker persons in that community—this includes our aged, of course— and on the other hand, the standard of civilization of that community—in fact, in Western societies it has become a norm by which a community shall be judged. The more a community spends on protection for its aged persons and other similar groups, the higher its standards of civilization. That is actually my theme. Of course this has not always been so. We are still dealing with a development process, a process which goes back for many years. Even in primeval times the various communities found that one particular group had a hampering effect on their efforts to survive. This group was the aged. Naturally they were no longer very productive; they were no longer so fleet of foot, and they could no longer actually make a contribution to the community. In those days the solution was fairly easy—they were simply left behind; nobody paid any attention to them. But the urge to survive is very strong, and in course of time the aged people started making attempts, frequently with great strategic skill and acumen, to secure their own survival. In this way a whole series of taboos and rules developed, rules and taboos which were aimed specifically at securing a certain role for the aged people. By the nature of things these rules related primarily to the provision of food or how to obtain food. Thus we find that among the Red Indians in America the taboo developed that nobody except the old people should eat the head of a wild turkey—it was supposed to exhaust one’s brain, something which did not matter very much to the old folks. Among the Bushmen in our own country we find the idea that nobody except the old people may eat the meat of an animal killed by lightning, because it is supposedly dangerous—except to the old people, who are supposed to be immune to that kind of thing. The Hottentots even added a sexual distinction, because they believed that nobody except the old men was allowed to eat the meat of a steenbuck—it would supposedly affect fertility and longevity.

But as communities became more stable, we find that the old people became more subtle. By the nature of matters they sensed intuitively that survival was synonymous with acceptance and that acceptance was linked to usefulness. They began to realize that if they could make a substantial contribution to their community they would be accepted by that community. Thus we find that among the Incas the old people acted as mobile scarecrows. Among the Maoris, again, the old people had the function of beating on shells at night to keep rats out of the fields. Among the Egyptians the old people. especially the oldest and ugliest among them, were chosen to stand in front of the hovels at night to drive away evil spirits. Thus the development process continued. Later the old people proceeded to claim a role for themselves in communal life by becoming the exponents and guardians of the morals and customs of their community: thus they began to play an important role in religion, even in the art of magic and in the use of medicine.

That brings us to the present. Here, too, we find that a development process is still taking place. While we still had a rural community, it was fairly easy to take care of the aged. As the hon. member for Kimberley (South) rightly said, we are now in the midst of an urbanizing process, a process which follows industrialization, and all at once this problem becomes much harder. In industrialiaztion we find that families become smaller, that housing becomes a major problem and that there is an ever-growing demand on the shrinking financial resources of the family; the pace of life changes rapidly and it becomes more difficult for old people to adapt themselves to it. This, then, is the situation we find ourselves in at the moment. The hon. member referred to the interesting data collected by the Bureau for Educational and Social Research, but I am not sure that the hon. member made all the deductions which are possible from those data. He said that 25 per cent of our aged people were still living with their relatives at present. But this percentage is becoming smaller and smaller, because at the beginning of this century this percentage was twice as large. The hon. member also indicated that 68 per cent of our aged people were living on their own. We can often only speculate on the circumstances under which this percentage lives. Perhaps it will later be possible for me to lift the curtain on this aspect. Two per cent, the hon. member said, are cared for by strangers. That may be a sign that even in modern life there are still good Samaritans, or it may be an indication that there are people who are prepared to exploit these aged persons. Only 5 per cent of our aged people find themselves in institutions. But one may presume that this percentage will increase gradually.

Now the question arises, what is the role and the function of the state under these circumstances? It depends on our general philosophy and outlook on life. In a socialistic state it is accepted that the state has to shoulder the full responsibility. That is the position in Russia, where the people make no contributions to pension funds or old-age provision—these are the responsibility of the state. In Western communities, on the other hand, the position is somewhat different. Here the function of the state is primarily to lay down general policy. That is what this legislation does—mainly under clause 2. In the second place, it is the function of the state to regulate all available services, to co-ordinate and to ensure that there will be no exploitation. These principles are also dealt with in this Bill—mainly under clauses 3 to 6. A third function of the state is to create mechanisms in terms of which financing may take place. This aspect is covered by clauses 7 to 19 of this Bill. Clause 20 provides for the promulgation of regulations relating to the payment of pensions. Although we accept these provisions, I also want to say that in our view they do not go far enough. Clause 2, for example, merely indicates the direction but does not say how far or how fast we should go. I adopt the attitude that the planning of services for our aged people should form part of a general programme of community planning. We cannot view it in isolation—it forms part of a much wider context. What we actually need in South Africa is a kind of Beveridge Plan, a plan which will create the framework within which it will be possible for us to regulate these matters. We have to assume that the problems in this connection will increase continually—as the hon. member for Kimberley (South) also indicated. In the twenties only 4 per cent of our population were older than 65 years. To-day it is 7 per cent, and in many Western communities it is expected that it will soon be 10 Der cent. We know that the number of aged people is increasing at a rate which is twice as high as the rate of, the total population increase. We know that aged people need three times as much medical care as young people. There are Western communities which insist on at least 7 per cent of all new housing being set aside for the aged people. These are all aspects which should be provided for in an overall community plan.

We have to see to it that the provision we make for our aged people is adequate. Actually it is a matter of conscience. How many of those of us sitting in this hon. House to-day have no twinges of conscience about the amounts paid out to aged people at present? Who is there who would say that R32 is enough for a White to make a living on? Who is there who would say that R4 is adequate to enable a Bantu to buy himself enough food? When the hon. the Minister of Finance submitted his Bugdet to us, he said that the total amount paid out in pensions in South Africa was now R91.9 million compared with R51 million only ten years ago. In other words, in ten years’ time there has been an increase of R40 million. That sounds like a great deal, but then we should allow for the erosion in the purchasing power of our rand. Several years ago the Viljoen Commission pointed out that the price level was increasing by approximately 4 per cent a year. On this basis the price level doubles itself every 17 years. If we take R40 million and make this adjustment, we find that the increase of R40 million comes to less than half of that. Let us rather calculate it on a different basis. At the moment our entire Social Welfare and Pensions Vote amounts to R110 million, as far as Loan Account is concerned. Taken as a percentage of the total current account, it amounts to approximately 8 per cent. If we actually want to express that as a percentage of the gross national product, it amounts to only slightly more than 1 per cent. Consequently the progress we are making in this field is not so wonderful at all.

The hon. member also referred to the psychological factors involved. This is an important aspect. The aged people should also like to feel that they form part of the community, that they are making their contributions. They are capable of doing so. I just want to mention some examples. Voltaire made some of his greatest contributions when he was well in his sixties. The Englishman Chichester is how sailing around the world in a small boat although he is over 65. Marshall Blücher played an important and leading part in the battle of Waterloo when he was 73. Gladstone was elected Prime Minister of Britain for the first time when he was 80. In our own times we may think of Churchill, De Gaulle and Adenauer, who played leading roles in their respective countries when they had already reached an advanced age. Aged people are capable of doing so; we merely have to give them an opportunity to be productive. I am, therefore, grateful that the hon. member also referred to retirement ages, because we are quite old-fashioned in our approach to this matter. In a country like South Africa, where we have such a tremendous shortage of manpower, we should have a flexible retirement age, and that is what most of the Western communities are trying to do at present.

We should absorb the aged people in our community. They should feel that they belong with the living and not with the dying. As Mr. Bevan, one of the well-known British politicians, once put it: “Let us put our old people in a thriving community—let them be surrounded by perambulators rather than, by coffins.”

To me this is a matter of conscience. In South Africa we try to take the lead on many different levels. Let us not in this important matter, the care of the aged persons, people for whom we are responsible, shirk our duty either. We are so frequently talking of our flourishing economy and of the progress we are making, let us see to it that the aged people, the people who played their part in it, who helped us to build up the economy, shall not be left out and left behind.

Mr. Speaker, fortunately I do not have the same problem as the hon. member for Hillbrow with regard to the hon. member for Kimberley (South). He did not enter my field, and fortunately I have the privilege to keep to the few observations I want to make. The hon. member will forgive me if I do not follow him in his arguments; we have no objection to what he said.

Our society may readily be accused of being too “youth conscious” and perhaps “aged fearing”. But I believe that in view of the legislation before us at the moment that accusation cannot be levelled against us. This is important legislation in that it relates to the care of our aged people. It is also certain that in future we shall see more of this kind of legislation. If one is dealing with the care of people, if it is done by the State, the church and the community, no fixed pattern can be laid down, particularly not in the rapidly developing and rapidly changing times in which we are living. In future, too, continual attention will, therefore, have to be devoted to this matter. Relief for the aged and the treatment and care of our aged people have not enjoyed our attention only since yesterday. It is in the nature and character of civilized nations that they afford a certain status to aged people and see to the care of the aged. Not only do we find this among civilized nations—it is frequently also the case among uncivilized ones. Not only in the ordinary care of aged persons, but also in institutional care for the aged the first steps were taken many years ago in South Africa, and private initiative in particular took the dead in this regard and, as far as they are concerned, the record is fairly long. Even in 1882 a home for Indigent aged women was established at the instance of the church, and in 1896 a similar home for indigent aged men was established.

As a result of the increase in the number of aged people, however, the interest in this matter has intensified in recent times. The phenomenon of ageing is regarded toy some people as one of the great changes in the present-day Western world. There has been a reference to the survey undertaken toy the Bureau for Educational and Social Research. In the figures furnished toy them they state that in 1961 there were 300,800 aged people. They then make a projection which indicates the following: In 1971 there will toe approximately 417,000 aged people; in 1991 there will be 611,000; the number for the year 2001 is projected at 700,600. It is expected that the ratio of aged people to the population as a whole will also change. An ever-growing percentage of the population will fall in the aged group or in the higher age group. Old age is, therefore, a phenomenon which should in fact be taken into account. It is in actual fact a phenomenon with widespread social and economic implications, and one is readily tempted to speak of this phenomenon as a “problem”. We should, however, refrain from speaking of the phenomenon of ageing as a problem. We should rather regard it as our duty to take care of the needs and to see to the care of the aged people. It is actually a pleasant privilege and our bounden duty to see to the care of our aged people, and we should rather not refer to it as a problem. This pleasant task and bounden duty does not rest on the State only, but also on the community and on the church. Through this Bill before us we enter a new phase of our proper task.

In the memorandum which accompanied the legislation, the aims of the legislation are set out. It relates to the registration of all homes for the aged and other institutions that care for the aged, and regular inspections of such places; the protection of aged people against exploitation and physical and spiritual neglect; statutory authority for subsidizing services rendered to aged people, and provision for the allocation of old-age pensions. The objectives set here are welcomed, and the way in which we seek to realize these objectives is very clearly set out in the various clauses of the Bill. I just want to point out that I am particularly glad about the powers of regulation conferred on the Minister in respect of the scales on which old-age pensions are to be granted, and the conditions on which such pensions will toe granted. The explicit condition is added, of course, that the maximum amount of a pension may not toe altered without the consent of this House.

Generally speaking, the Bill meets all the demands made on us toy the relief of the aged. It is founded on the best knowledge at our disposal, and the correct means are employed to achieve the aims. In this respect one cannot accuse the hon. the Minister or the Department of what is mentioned in the quotation I now want to read. I quote from an article by Dr. Lena Strating, “Rehabilitasie in Suid-Afrika”, dated December, 1962, in which she said the following, inter alia, (translation)—

As I say, I do not think we can accuse the hon. the Minister and his Department of also lacking insight as far as these matters are concerned.

I want to refer to the aims of this measure, and in particular its implementation, as the mainly physical or concrete activities and services rendered. This concrete assistance, particularly when it is rendered in the form of pensions, is most essential. Without it the relief of our aged would have been totally inadequate, and we would have been able to bring about virtually no relief for the aged without it. It is, therefore, most important. But we would have had cause for concern if this measure had concentrated on concrete assistance only, and if another very important objective had not also been set in this Bill and if no provision had been made for its implementation. I find that in the third objective referred to, namely the statutory authorization for subsidizing services rendered to the aged, and the implementation of that in clause 2. Here we are dealing with more than a merely physical or concrete activity. I say that particularly in the light of the report of the work group which we had before us and also in the light of the annual report of the Department. In the report one gains an impression of how this Department is also seeking to perform a psychosocial service in respect of our aged people. It is striking how they collected the very latest knowledge in this regard, how they try to apply that knowledge in their methods of care and treatment, and that no fixed patterns are laid down in respect of the care of aged people. It is important that the balance between the concrete and physical assistance rendered and the psycho-social assistance should be maintained. I want to quote once again from the article to which I referred a moment ago, to indicate how important it is that this balance should toe maintained. The author wrote as follows—

If one looks at the report of the Department and at the work of the work group, one receives the impression that those methods are indeed being used. In the annual report of the Department there is mention of the services of trained social workers and professional officers who are engaged in the individual treatment of aged people as well. There is also the group work and community organization, which are provided mainly through private initiative subsidized by the State. To place greater emphasis on these psycho-social services. it may perhaps become necessary to plead with the Minister that he should later increase some of those subsidies.

However, one is confronted by a problem. Even though one wishes to render the concrete and the psycho-social services to our aged people, it unfortunately so happens that we do not always reach all our aged people. There are those of whom we are aware and who are accommodated in homes or who report at the clubs, but there are also those— particularly those to whom the hon. member for Kimberley (South) referred—who withdraw themselves altogether, and not even church or welfare organizations know about them. These are perhaps the very people who are most needy. The problems of those aged people whom we do reach, who are accommodated in homes or who take part in the club activities, can very soon be discovered and the necessary service also the psycho-social service can very soon be rendered to them. But we experience problems with the aged person who withdraws him or her altogether and who even tries to evade the people who try to find him or her. I do not think it is inappropriate that we should make an appeal to our churches and our welfare organizations to make renewed efforts to find those aged people for us, because they are the people who are in particular need of our services and our assistance. In view of the fact that our entire social structure has changed and that we are undergoing a process of urbanization, I believe that it is particularly the aged people in the cities who experience great problems, and in the large masses of the city they may so easily get lost and withdraw themselves. This appeal to church and welfare organizations should be disseminated far and wide, for by enlisting their assistance we should ensure that many of those aged people will also be able to claim for themselves the benefits contained in this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to expand upon what has been said by the hon. member who has just sat down and the hon. member for Hillbrow, although I want to thank the last-named for the very wonderful contribution he has made to this debate. What has emerged from this debate reminds me of the old Afrikaans saying which, freely translated, means that one parent can rear 20 children, but 20 children cannot rear one parent, or look after him in his old age.

We welcome the Bill and I am very glad to see that both sides support the Minister. It is belated; it should have been introduced years ago. One thing that is very pleasing is the provision for the registration of old homes. Now there will be proper control which will eliminate exploitation. This will not only affect the pensioner but also those who can afford to pay. I know that certain places charge exorbitant prices for looking after people in their old age. One thing I am especially glad about is the appointment of welfare inspectors, who can now inspect these homes. I wonder whether it is not possible to extend the authority of these inspectors. I should like them to inspect all homes or rooms that are let to old pensioners. Some of them live in rooms in back-yards where they have to live, cook, eat. wash and sleep. When they are ill, there is nobody to look after them. Very often they lie in saturated beds. It is a most pathetic and unhygienic condition. I am especially glad for the subsidies for service clubs and service centres. This is the only place—and I speak from experience because in Pietermaritzburg we run something similar to that—where these old people get together to have a chat with their friends, enjoy some refreshment, and break the monotony of that very monotonous life that they have to live.

I think that the hon. the Minister and also other Ministers have visited the very wonderful garden lay-out for pensioners and other old people that we have in Pietermaritzburg, especially for those who are still mobile and can look after themselves. I should like the department when building homes in various centres to try and adopt that method, to keep the old people out of a home as such, so that they can still live in a real home, in a garden, and can feel that they belong to a community.

Everybody here has spoken about the European. May I remind hon. members that this Bill is for all race groups. Do not let us forget that. Let us remember that the old non-European has also made his contribution during his lifetime to the country and he, too, is entitled to be looked after.

Finally, I want to thank the staff of the department for the wonderful work they do and the magnificent assistance that they give everybody, especially hon. members of this House, throughout the year.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to thank all three of the hon. members on the opposite side who have made speeches, for their contributions and for the fact that so much unanimity has been reached on this matter. We are all agreed on this most important matter, which relates to our aged people. In fact, it could not be otherwise, with people who are themselves half-old who may themselves have children, who expect to become old. and who at one time were infants who needed care.

In particular I want to thank the hon. member for Umbilo. who was the main speaker on the opposite side, for the constructive suggestions he always makes. You will notice, Sir, that the hon. the Minister says time and again: “I shall take note of that.” I am speaking of the hon. member for Umbilo, and although we do not mention names here we all know that he is Mr. Oldfield, and it is surely appropriate that now and then an hon. member on this side—let us say, the hon. member for Waterberg, whom we may call “Mr. Youngfield”—should also be given an opportunity to say something in this regard. I know I am a jovial person. Now and then I am told that quite cordially. I imagine it also appears from my speeches. But now I cannot refrain from following the example of General De Wet. and when I move among our people to see to it that everything is going smoothly I walk around with my sjambok in my hand, so to speak! That may. perhaps, prove to be the case to-day; but I want to tell hon. members beforehand that there is nothing to be afraid of.

In 1964, after years of concern and care, there was an appeal to introduce legislation relating to the protection of our aged people. Now I have to express my dislike of and regret for the expression “protection of our aged people.” Imagine it! I can understand the “care” of our aged people. But against whom are they protected? Who are they, who are our aged people with whom we are concerned to-day? I have jotted down certain points in my notebook, and I shall refer to them briefly. The aged person is an invaluable treasure from the past: he is the foundation stone on which society is built. We talk about the plight of the aged people; they are the foundation stones on which this country is built, and in fact on a religious, educational, social, political, ethical and moral basis. And now we come along with a Bill which purports to “protect” the people who have rendered these services! Surely there is a mistake somewhere! Let us make no mistake. It is not intended that they should be protected against thieves and robbers and burglars and murderers and people of prison and crime fame. Against whom, then? Against unavoidable circumstances, but frequently against compatriots, and worse, against their own blood, and even worse, against their own children. Do you see, Sir? Now I start showing the sjambok. They have to be protected against their own blood children who are supposedly looking after their parents. Let me then say these hard wo.ds: They do that under the pretence of loving and selfless care—but only as long as the old father or old mother draws that little pension! We are thankful for the laudable exceptions.

On 18th September, 1964, a commission of six men was appointed—men of high standing, fame, sound knowledge and profound humanity —to go into this matter. Their terms of reference were to enquire into the necessity for preparing a draft Bill relating to—and here it appeared once again—the “protection of our aged people.” They made a recommendation to the effect that it was actually necessary to protect our aged people. Against what? Against exploitation, against poor accommodation, and against poor medical care. To that I may add malnutrition, and that many of them are meagrely and inadequately clothed, which is not necessary.

Our aged people need intensified attention. The hon. members for Kimberley (South) and Germiston mentioned why intensified attention was necessary, namely because of the increase in their numbers, and I shall therefore not repeat that. I want to save you the trouble. Sir, of calling me to a well-deserved order. Now they are provided for by means of old age pensions, war-veteran pensions and the provision of homes. I must say, I have an aversion to the Afrikaans term “tehuise”. In the Waterberg I waged a tremendous struggle. which I lost. If there is any time left, I shall talk about that towards the end of my speech. Finally there are subsidies to welfare organizations.

What is our policy? It has already been referred to, and you must forgive me for repeating it, but we cannot over-emphasize it. Briefly, it amounts to the following: Wherever it is possible the aged person should be kept in the family circle. They should be kept an integral part of the community. They should should be made independent to a large extent by granting them pensions. Facilities should also be created to enable them to do some handwork. There are many of them who can still do that. In a moment, if I have the opportunity, I shall say more about this. Wherever possible, they should be economically active according to their abilities. I have seen that in the home for the aged at Nylstroom. I am compelled to use the Afrikaans name “tehuis”, because it is still standing there, until I succeed in changing it; I am not going to rest until it is done. I have seen myself how an old father there did wood-work and metal-work and sold such useful things. The old mothers knit and crochet. Why not? But then we should supply them with those materials. We cannot expect them to go and buy them from their meagre pensions. Give them those materials and let them make those things, and then they can hold an exhibition and we can all go and look and buy those things from them. Let them be aware of their human dignity and realize that they are still useful in life. I am now getting ahead of my own speech, and I am shortly going to get into trouble because I have more to say about the matter. I have already said that this helps to make them retain their human dignity. They should belong to clubs and they should organize functions. We invite them to visit us. In the Nylstroom City Hall we have a regular function for our aged people of the Waterberg Old Age Home and then we entertain them and they are a worn-out old audience, instead of which we should give them the opportunity to entertain us and then we should listen. They come to listen to things with which we try to entertain them and in which they are not very much interested, because the disparity between our times is to great. Just the following further point as regards our policy: The dwelling units of the married couples provide them with the opportunity to have a homelike atmosphere and to entertain their children and their friends and the minister and to treat them to cake and tea and coffee which the old mother herself provides. Thus we guard against that torturing process of isolation. It has already been mentioned, but it will not be amiss to repeat that we must take a strong interest in their hobbies and we should provide them, as I have said, with the necessary materials to exercise their skills, that handwork and wood-work and metal-work and needlework which they can place on exhibition in the city hall, where we shall all go, with the mayor making a speech, for example, and then they will sell those things and pocket their self-earned money. Come on, let us help them to be human beings. Provide a library in every home for the aged, with the reading matter which those people need. There is the town library, but how on earth are they going to select reading matter from all those thousands of books? I do not always manage to get everything I want from any library, unless the good people tell me what I want and where to find it.

Are they not served by the Provincial Library?

I really do not know about that. They come to the schools and town libraries and leave again, but I do not think they visit the homes for the aged. Let us organize song and musical evenings in which they can take part. Let the old gentlemen play their accordions. That is the instrument from their days. In Nylstroom there was a city orchestra with violins and all kinds of musical instruments of which I do not even know the names, and one old gentleman sat and listened and then said: “Would you believe it, they haven’t even got an accordion!” Let the old gentleman play his accordion and let them sing songs. I made them sing and listened to them singing their songs from the old days, the visiting songs and the courting songs. They have the accordion there and the old gentlemen and ladies can demonstrate to us how they danced the polka and the mazurka; and the “seties” and the waltz. One lets them relive the times in which they lived. And what is important, let them tell us about the old days. It is quite amusing, and the most amusing of all is that they embroider so much when they tell their stories, because each has to go one better than the next, otherwise the game is pointless.

Listen to this, for example, and tell me how much you know about this. They tell us about finger-pulling. It was a form of sport in the old days when a man did manual work and had more strength in his index finger than the ordinary man has in his forearm nowadays. And “hakke-krukke”; a game in which the two competitors lie head and feet together on their backs with their left legs against each other; when the umpire says “hakke!” they lift their right legs, at “krukke!” the left legs, and at “haak maar in!” the right legs are hooked together quickly and the two competitors try to pull each other over. If I win, I give you three hard slaps on your backside, and the other way around. Our aged people are dying under these attempts we are making to keep them going. Here is something else. Let them tell us about their bare-fisted fights. They did that if they could not settle a matter. We say it is Bushman work, but it was also the work of farmers to resort to fisticuffs if they could not agree, and afterwards they sat together on the stoep and smoked their pipes with swollen lips. It is not such a big sin. There are some other things. There are their farmers’ remedies, how they did stick-pulling and dug wells to find water, and how they trained young oxen and horses, how they practised target shooting, their horse races and their farmers’ sport, “bok-bok” and “hoender-haanskop”. Let the old people tell us about those. Then there was “warmpatat” and “skil-padtrek” and game of forfeits. You would fall 15 feet down the well, knowing that it would cost you a kiss for every foot you had to be lifted. It was customary to fall as far down the well as possible. Let them tell us tales about hunting and transport riding and how they set rifles for lions and traps for birds, and how they had narrow escapes and how they played touch in the water or in the oak trees. You would be “it”, and then everybody would run and if you can touch me, I would be on. They would scramble though the banches like monkeys and ty to catch each other. Then there are the hunting stories and blind man’s buff, setting traps and fishing, which we call angling nowadays, and the working of the old watermill, and Saturday nights were courting nights. Remember the chestnut with the white blaze? This is how we should entertain them or they should entertain us. I have almost come to the end of the list. Then there was “Afrikata”, as we called it. I am not going to explain this; it is a long story, and hon. members can come and ask me what it is. There are also episodes from the Trek, war stories, pillow fights and weddings—ah, the old Boer weddings. There was also swimming in one’s birthday suit in the rivers and streams, holes in which we fished, men in one swimming hole and the women in the other. [Interjection.] Oom Jim says they could have swum towards each other; yes, possibly, along the same stream, the men downstream and the women upstream.

Now, to take a more serious line, I doubt whether these things that I have mentioned could really be done as successfully in our departmentally administered institutions— such as Sonop, near Brits, Silverkroon, near East London, and Karatara, between George and Knysna—as in institutions with more private initiative, but State-subsidized, because those institutions are more local in nature and less impersonal.

At present the aged people live under different conditions which I just want to mention. In the first place, in homes for the aged. No matter how well intended, this remains an artificial creation of an artificial home for a real human being, it lies outside the framework of the national constitution which should provide a natural home for children from eight to 88. as Langenhoven put it. They are in actual fact cared for artificially outside the context of the community, and worse, outside the national context, and worst of all, outside the family context. [Interjection.] Sir, here is an hon. member who says jokingly that f am reading my speech. To a certain extent that is a weakness which I show nowadays, but I do try to look up from my notes as often as possible to create the impression that I am not quite reading. Another thing I want to mention is that somewhere in the community an aged person is sitting in a cheat) rented room which is not proper to human dignity, and he or she become isolated in poverty without periodic visits by persons interested in them or sometimes even without visits by church officers. Such may be their circumstances, but then they may also be in the following circumstances: In the warmth of a family home, showered with love, and these are the happy aged people. This is how we should like to have them, where they may also be visited by interested people and officers of the church to which they belong. But the saddest of all, tragic beyond all description, is that many aged people suffer lack of love in loneliness within the very context of the home and the community; they suffer exploitation by their own children. The parents who receive pensions are often inadequately clad and underfed people in the homes of their own children. They are regarded as a mere source of income, as “articles” the value of which is measured by the amount of their pensions. And if that financial source falls away for some reason or other, those “pieces of furniture” are no longer worthwhile having in one’s home. What does the State do? In 1951 there were 32 subsidized homes for the aged. In 1964 there were 102. In 1966 there were 119, which even then accommodated 6,063 aged people. Extensions are being added to 14 homes, which will provide for 404 aged people over and above the 6,063 who are already cared for. Another 51 homes are being built for 3,465 aged people, which will shortly bring the number to no fewer than 10,000. I do not want to mention the financial contributions on the various heads because that is time-consuming, but it runs to millions and millions. Thus aged people in need of care are cared for and exploited aged people are protected. It is such a pity that we really have to use the word and that some of them really need protection. Care and protection becomes necessary when the breadwinner falls away, when they lack financial means or are unable to do remunerative work. Sir, what is to be the end to all this, and what effect should this legislation have? This: material assistance, medical care, a function in life, retention of the links with the community, the links with the family, the links with the church, offering the aged people an opportunity to lead the life of human beings, to retain their self-respect and to make them more firmly aware of their usefulness and of their human dignity.

Now I want to say something about the Afrikaans term “tehuis”. What is a “tehuis”? Where does that word come from; what does it purport to be? We have the fine example in Nylstroom of the Langlaagte Orphanage where 12 “huise” were built, not “tehuise”, on a family basis, with a father and a mother and no more than 1 or 12 children in each home. The homes were given the names of trees in the Waterberg Bushveld; one is known as “Huis Tamboti”; then there is “Huis Maroela”: “Huis Sering”, “Huis Bekenhout, etc. Sir, if one has been gone for some time, there is nothing pleasanter than to be able to say. “I am going home”, and there is nothing pleasanter than “coming home”. I had an old uncle who used to say, when he had had a few drinks, that coming home was so pleasant that he wished he could come home three times every day. There is the home for the aged in Waterberg. for which we are very grateful, and which is at present known at the “Waterbergse Ouetehuis”. Do you know what I fought for? A minister worked there for 40 years. His wife’s name was Liberia, and Liberta Venter did more for the aged people than anybody else in the Waterberg. I then suggested that we should call that home “Huis Liberta vir Bejaardes”. I hope hon. members see my point. But what do we find there? “Waterbergse Ouetehuis”! Sir, I want the name changed. You will tell me that I should not quarrel with you about it, but that name should be changed. That home should be known as “Huis Liberta vir Bejaardes”, I insist on that.

Mr. Speaker, we are glad about this legislation. We leave each other in a happier frame of mind because of what we expect. I regret, Sir, that I have not expressed my appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his good officials, but they know our sentiments. I want to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and his officials, who listen so patiently to our representations in connection with the aged. We have nothing but praise and gratitude for them, and we wish them the blessings of the Almighty on the most essential work they are doing. We also proffer our sincere gratitude to administrative officials, house-fathers and house-mothers, for their selfless service.

The hon. member who has just sat down has given us ample evidence of his histrionic capabilities and I must say that we enjoyed listening to him. What he said was interesting and entertaining but beneath it all we could detect the sincerity of his plea for the aged.

Sir. I want to confine myself to the Coloured people who are also referred to in this Bill. In practice, although the care of aged Coloured persons will be transferred to the Department of Coloured Affairs, this Bill does deal with the Coloureds and I would like to deal with certain aspects of it. The Coloured Affairs Department has a department dealing with the aged and the infirm and I must say from my experience of the department that they are doing exceptionally good work, but what is most disturbing is the great disparity between the amounts which are provided for in the Estimates this year under this Vote and under the Coloured Affairs Vote. Under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, provision is being made this year for more than R1 million …

I think the hon. member should discuss that on the Minister’s Vote.

Sir, I am not going to discuss this in detail: I merely want to point out that on page 87 of the Estimates …

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling. He should discuss that matter on the Minister’s Vote.

Mr. C. BARNETT; Sir, I do not intend to discuss it; I merely want to make a certain point after quoting the two figures. Will you not allow me just to quote the two figures?

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling. The matter that he wishes to raise can be discussed next week when the Minister’s Vote comes under discussion.

Very well, Sir, I will not pursue this point. I know that the provision which is made for old-age homes for Coloureds depends on the number of aged Coloureds. However, I abide by your ruling, Sir, and I will deal with this matter under the respective Votes. But you will appreciate, Sir, that in terms of clause 2 of this Bill the Minister has the power to establish and maintain homes for the aged, and it is under that particular clause that I wanted to point out that, according to my information, there are only two homes which provide for the Coloured aged. There is one tat Kraaifontein where, I think, about 130 aged Coloureds are housed, and then there is one in Faure where only about 200 Coloureds are housed. According to my information these are the only two homes which have so far been established for the Coloureds. If I understood the hon. member for Waterberg correctly, there are hundreds of homes for whites, and others are in the course of being constructed. My appeal to the Minister is please to build more homes for the Coloured aged. As I have said, in the Western Province there are only these two homes which are capable of housing 300 odd people. Sir, the Coloured population must be close to a million, which is equivalent to almost a third or a quarter of the white population of the whole Republic, and there must be many old people amongst this population of one million. I believe that the tributes paid to the hon. the Minister and his Department for this Bill to look after the aged are well deserved, and I want to say that any law which is brought forward for the protection and the well-being of our aged deserves the support of the whole House, and I think the Minister will get it. But if we want to create the impression not only in this country but throughout the world that we are looking after our aged—and we are justified in painting that picture to the world—then I say that I have the right and, indeed it is my duty, to say to the hon. the Minister that there should not be this great disparity between the number of homes provided for the white section of the population and for the Coloured section, nor should there be such a vast difference in the amounts allocated. I say that old people, whether they be white. Coloured, Indian or Bantu, have to struggle equally hard to support themselves, and I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to make more money available to the Coloured Affairs Department for the care of the aged.

I cannot do it under this measure. You must talk to the Minister of Coloured Affairs.

Very well, I will take up this matter with the Minister of Coloured Affairs.

Sir, in my humble opinion there is a crying need throughout the country for the establishment of old-age homes for the Coloured people. There are areas such as Kimberley, Port Elizabeth and other places in the Transvaal where, to my knowledge, no homes exist for the Coloureds, and in this connection i refer again to the hon. Minister’s right under clause 2 to establish and maintain homes for the aged, and I make an appeal to him once again to increase the number of homes for Coloureds. I do not think I need stress that further. I make this appeal sincerely on behalf of the Coloured people. We are looking after them, but I think we are not looking after them to the extent that their numbers justify.

Subclause (2) then goes on to say—

“In the case of a white person.” I cannot understand why this should only apply to a white person. Surely the Minister must be aware of the fact that there are many Coloured people who were born in South Africa and who went to South West Africa not by choice but of necessity. They probably followed their employers there. There are many white people who went from South Africa to South West Africa and who took their Coloured workers with them. Why should these Coloured persons be excluded from the provisions of this measure by the time factor? I cannot understand why the Minister wants this to apply only to white people. Perhaps the idea is to avoid claims for pensions from people belonging to the tribes of South West Africa and who come to South Africa. I can understand ‘that, but surely where a Coloured person has departed from South Africa to take up residence in South West Africa, for reasons which are logical and legal and which can be substantiated, he should be in no worse position than a white South African who went to South West Africa. I hope the hon. the Minister will consider this arid that he will be prepared to insert an amendment to the effect that if a Coloured man who went to South West Africa can prove that he was in fact born in this country he will not be precluded from the benefits of this clause, if his reasons for leaving this country are acceptable to the Minister.

Sir, there is very little else that one can say except that, because of the dearth of homes for Coloureds, it is, of course, necessary for aged Coloureds to seek residence in whatever place they can get it. I have no doubt that the position is the same as amongst Europeans and that these people will have to pay very dearly for the house or little room they occupy. I gather from the clauses contained in the Bill that people who exploit these people will be severely dealt with. I hope that the plea which I am making for the establishment of more Coloured homes will be considered by the hon. the Minister. I know that if he builds them and hands them over to the Department of Coloured Affairs, that Department, with the staff it already has, who are trained and most dedicated to looking after these people, will run those homes with that efficiency which has characterized all their other work. The Minister will do the Coloured people of the Republic, not a favour, but a deed for which they will be forever grateful.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat must not take it amiss of me if I do not follow up on what he has said. I think that the hon. the Minister will himself reply to what he said there. Actually there is little that remains for one to say in regard to this legislation, particularly after hearing the hon. member for Waterberg who discussed the cafe of our elderly people in such a comprehensive and pleasant way. But I have always thought that a well-organized community should see to the requirements of all its constituent parts. There must be a rightful place for elderly people in the community. It is also the traditional policy in South Africa that elderly people must be helped for as long as possible to live on their own as normal members of the community. It is also true that where out elderly people still have the ability as far as health is concerned they are at their happiest when they are able to live by themselves. It is also the greatest ideal in the life of each’ person to be able to be independent, and the same applies to our elderly people, who want to remain independent under those conditions where they can live on their own and on their own terms.

Is it not also true that parents up to the last try to cling to their own homes where they can live through their remaining years peacefully in a self-supporting and independent way? As is the case with all young people our elderly people also have the desire to have a home of their own where they can receive and entertain their friends and children themselves. Is there a more pleasant meeting place than the parental home, even when the children have long since left it? It is also true that the parents are at their happiest there. What finer words are there than those of the Afrikaans poet, “O moederhuis, waar ooit so tuis, jou het ek lief bo alles”? Is it not true that when we as children, who have the privilege of having parents who are still living, go home, mother is still able to cut us a slice of that home-made bread out of her bread tin and offer us some of her home-baked biscuits and find some sweets somewhere for the children? But unfortunately circumstances have changed to such an extent that this is not always possible nowadays. There are many causes. They have been gone into fully. The most important perhaps are financial problems which contribute to it being impossible to maintain those parental homes. I have always thought that it is the duty of the children to care for their parents. What a salutary influence does a grandfather or a grandmother not have in a home? Are there not many of us who have ourselves as young children learnt our first lesson in morals, our first prayer at our grandfather’s knee? For surely it is true that that sense of honour is preserved by our elderly people. The elderly people would like to have that financial security and they also need that housing in order to have a share in the community. In this respect I have in fact seen a solution at Boksburg where there are a few sub-economic houses which are occupied mainly by elderly people, houses which they can occupy at a low rental and where they can be quite self-supporting. Those elderly people there form a happy community. They walk from the one house to the other and if one were to pay one of those elderly people a visit they would also be able to tell you about the doings of the whole neighbourhood. I am also grateful to the hon. the Minister for that block of flats which is going to be erected in Boksburg, principally for low wage earners and elderly people, where they can stay on their own. Surely it is the case that the old people feel, no matter how small that house is, that it is a place where they can still receive and entertain their family and their children and where their friends can enjoy a cup of coffee with them. He still knows the businesses and the people he visits regularly still stay there. He is not a stranger in that neighbourhood. An important fact is that his church, to which he has become accustomed throughout his life, is still near to him. His doctor is still near to him. In his free time he still has a piece of ground in which he can make his garden. But, if all that cannot be done, the next best thing, to my Way of thinking, is an old-age home, even though the hon. member for Waterberg does not agree with me as to the name. Let us then rather call it a home where we can care for our aged persons. For the same reasons I should also like to see that each town has its own home for the aged where it can look after its own people and as I have already mentioned, where they will not be placed in a strange environment but will remain close to their family and friends. However, I also want to concede that it should not be the responsibility of the State, but principally that of the community itself, to erect those homes for the aged. Surely it is true, as the hon. member for Waterberg also said, that old people feel much happier when they are in the company of other old people, where they still have the company of people of the same age and the same background.

I think that the following matter affords us the greatest problems. It is the question of those elderly people who are not too well off, who cannot be taken up into a home for the aged and in regard to whom the living conditions and the accommodation facilities, particularly in the cities, are not all they should be. Many of the old people live on their own, isolated in a flat or rented room, and cannot realize themselves in the community. One of the chief difficulties facing the elderly people under those circumstances is that they withdraw themselves from the community owing to lack of physical strength and lack of communication with members of the community and are no longer acknowledged by society. Such a person feels that he is an outcast and that he is no longer necessary. The result is that these old people become neglected and in many cases are even undernourished. Here I want to pay tribute to the Department of Social Welfare, to our churches and all other organizations for what they have already done to alleviate the lot of those elderly people.

We welcome the provision in this Bill that homes for the aged must be registered, in this way it will be possible to lay down certain general standards and carry out inspections of homes and other places where our old people are being cared for. Unfortunately it is a tact that exploitation does occur and, as the hon. member for Waterberg said, it is in some cases the family itself, their own flesh and blood who are guilty of this exploitation. That is why I hope that it will be possible to undertake prosecutions, even if they are taken against the family of the old people in question.

Order! I shall be glad if the hon. member will refrain from repeating arguments. All these points have been put repeatedly. I appeal to hon. members to refrain from participating in the debate if they have no new arguments to put forward.

Then I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by congratulating the hon. the Minister on this comprehensive legislation and by thanking him for it on behalf of our elderly people. To-day they can no longer care for themselves, but they have in fact contributed their share in bringing our country to where it is to-day. But even in his old age that person nevertheless still wants to take his rightful and honourable place in society.

The welcome given to this Bill has been so great that the hon. the Minister may even expect someone to stand up and sing “For he’s a jolly good fellow”. Well, we do welcome this Bill. At last it is going to put something on the Statute Book to provide for proper supervision for homes for the aged in this country and to bring our old age pension laws up to date. It is, of course, the duty of every citizen of the country to make provision for our aged and to look after those who have reached the evening of their lives, as it is the duty of the child to look after his parents when they have reached a stage where they need attention and care. Unfortunately that does not always happen. Circumstances do not always allow it. The result is a certain amount of neglect. In the old days in England there was always the fear of the workhouse ever present to those people who were getting on in life. Here, as the hon. member for Umbilo has said, we owe a considerable amount of gratitude to those organizations throughout the country which have on a voluntary basis throughout the years …

Order! That point has been made. I should like the hon. member either to move on to new points or to resume his seat.

If those points have already been made, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the question of financing the various institutions. Although, as we have said, it is the duty of the individual, there is a growing feeling that it should be the duty of the State. Well, if one looks at the amount of money set aside for our aged and compares it with our expenditure on defence one cannot avoid having a guilty feeling. We spend a lot on defence, and quite rightly so, but we also have a duty to care for those amongst us who are in the evening of their lives. It ought to be a question of a social security programme. I am pleased to note that the Government is at last waking up to the fact that there is need for some kind of a social security programme for the country. Of course, we on this side of the House favour a contributory pension scheme to assist people all along the line.

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

This is making a big hole in my speech, Mr. Speaker! Anyhow, to return to the Bill itself, there are certain of the definitions I am not happy with.

Order! The definitions can be dealt with in committee.

I must ask your guidance and indulgence here. The Chairman of Committees has a habit of telling us that the aspect that we may be discussing is a principle which has been adopted at the Second Reading. If you will not allow us to talk about it here he may not allow us to talk about it there.

But definitions do not constitute a principle.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my speech is dwindling rapidly. I should have prepared an after-dinner speech rather like the hon. member for Waterberg. Anyhow, I make one final attempt by appealing to the Minister for the inclusion in this Bill of one item which does worry our pensioners—all pensioners. This is in connection with the repayment of pension overpayments. There are cases of pensioners who as a result of financial gain in one direction or another have become overdrawn in their pensions. When this is discovered, the pensioner has to repay the portion overdrawn. In many cases this causes great hardship. I know the Minister has the power to adjust the matter. That very seldom happens, however. I should therefore like to appeal to the Minister to give due consideration to the difficulties these pensioners have with the repayment of such amounts. They get little enough as it is. I should like to appeal to him therefore to do something to assist these people.

Mr. Speaker, there are two little matters which I want to raise. All of us are sincerely grateful for this legislation. To-day I want to raise a plea here for widows under the age of 60 years. In many cases it happens that a pensioner dies before his wife reaches the age of 60. That widow cannot then obtain a pension and the pension which her husband was drawing is immediately withdrawn. That places her in a difficult position and may even force her to leave the house in which she is living. That is a terrible disruption for her. Usually it is the women who have taken care of their families for years and have therefore not been able to participate in a profession. At that age it is impossible to find work for them. Recently I came across a few of these cases and I should like to tell the hon. the Minister about them because I think that something could be done here. In one of these cases the only work the woman could find was to take in washing. Apart from that she was in a neighbourhood where she would not have been able to earn much by doing so. The result was that she was obliged to vacate the house in which she and her husband had been living for 30 years. I hope therefore that there is provision in this Bill for cases such as these.

The other matter I want to touch upon is the way in which our people must retire on pension to-day. To me the method is too drastic. What I should like to see is that we allow a person to retire gradually—that is to say, that he should first of all have a shorter working day so that we can still retain the benefit of his knowledge and experience. A shorter working day will of course entail a reduced remuneration. But he still remains a useful citizen of our country and we obtain the benefit of the knowledge and experience which he has gained over the years. We have a great shortage of manpower and that is why I say we must make use of these people as long as they are able to render service. The prospects facing a person like that on the day he retires, i.e. to go and sit on his porch, wrap a blanket round his legs and wait for death to come, are all wrong. We must get away from that. As long as a person is physically and mentally able to do something we must make use of him—even though it is only for a few hours per day. This does not apply only to Government officials but also to the people working for private firms. It should also apply to women because we can put their services to very good use. This is a group of people whose experience we can certainly use. We can make of them a great asset to the labour market.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the Aged Persons Protection Bill and I think it is important that the House should have as clear a picture as possible of who we are protecting and what we are protecting the person from. The hon. member for Hillbrow has outlined what has happened in the past very thoroughly and I want to give a picture of what sometimes happens at present particularly in a country of this nature which is now changing from a pastoral to an industrial economy. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a few of the problems that arise by giving the life picture of a couple as seen by a social welfare worker in one of the London suburbs. This is the story of Mr. and Mrs. Croad. They live in Bermondsey. Charles Croad and his wife have two rooms of about 10 feet by 12. His wife’s name is Kathleen. They are 73 years old. In other words, they fall within the category of what is in this Bill said to be aged. Both have an old age pension and Mrs. Croad, whom we must remember is 73 years of age, does a few hours of scrubbing a day to bring in an extra 30 shillings a week. In this country that 30 shillings would probably fall under the means test so that she would not be able to do that work. Their weekly pensions amount roughly to £5 13s. 5d. and they cannot get any supplementary grant, even in a welfare state such as England, but they might, if they were to become seriously ill or some other catastrophe befell them, receive a compassionate discretionary allowance. This is how they live. For breakfast they each have two slices of bread and margarine and of course tea. For lunch they have a proper cooked meal with meat, potatoes and a vegetable. Unfortunately, the vegetable is usually tinned peas.

This exemplifies the tragedy of the lonely old people who cannot get out to do their shopping. They do not have the means to do much shopping and they must rely on the most expensive form of food, the last form of food that they should be using, namely tinned goods, food which has been processed. All processed foods with the possible exception of frozen foods lose something of their nutritive and health values by being processed. As I have said, this includes tinned peas. Stewing steak, chops and sausages are some of their more frequent purchases at the butchers. They do not get the vitamin-carrying parts such as the liver and the more tasty parts. They do not have a sweet but when it is very cold they open a tin of soup. A tin of soup is probably the most expensive item in any diet. The raw materials from which it is made cost extremely little but by the time it reaches the consumer, it has become very expensive indeed, illustrating, as I say, the tragedy of these old people. For supper they have what is left over from lunch and they add bread and margarine to that and of course they have tea. Soon after supper Mr. Croad goes to bed. I may mention that Mr. Croad is suffering from secondary malignancies of his prostate, not enough to keep him in hospital, but still extremely painful. He goes to bed immediately after supper and Mrs. Croad follows later. She has to get up at intervals during the night because he sleeps very badly and he has to have a cup of tea during the night. This old lady of 73 gets up in mid-winter in a cold country to make tea for her husband. They do not use fresh milk. It is cheaper to use tinned milk, but of course it is less nutritious and healthy. A Is. 8d. tin of milk lasts them a week. Their rooms have not been painted for 12 years. Everything accessible is scrupulously clean and everything which is out of reach has a film of dirt, showing the absence of any general help to assist these old people. This is in a welfare state. On the chest of drawers are about a dozen containers with Mr. Croad’s medicines, each of which cost him two shillings.

Order! Is that really relevant?

It is relevant to what we are trying to protect people from.

Order! I think the hon. member is going to unduly great lengths to try to explain to the House what is happening in another country.

Mr. Speaker, it happens here. Unfortunately I do not have an intimate description of conditions here. Our welfare organizers have not reached that stage yet.

I think that the hon. member must return to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to use just one more sentence from this report. They have only one friend who calls. She used to call three times a year but now she has moved and they do not expect to see her again. They have no accessible relatives and they have no children. There is no milkman and the vicar does not know of them. Their only visitor is an occasional postman. The tragedy is one of the main tragedies of old age, namely the tragedy of loneliness. Old age is a problem which concerns the community, the individual, the State and the Department of Social Welfare, amongst others. If we are to look after these people properly, this Department must cooperate with at least three or four other departments and must co-operate very closely. The Department of Labour should be called in. It should, as I will point out in a moment, provide special kinds of work for these people. The Department of Education, Arts and Science must play a part to educate the older worker not only as to how to undertake new occupations, but in addition to teach him how to pass at least a comparatively happy old age. Now we have a new department which we did not have before when we had to rely on other people, namely the Department of Recreation. I am sorry that the hon. Minister for Sport and Recreation is not present because here we have one of the most important items that should come under his attention. The loneliness of old age can be greatly helped by the work of this Department. Lastly, Sir, and perhaps the most important, we have to deal with the Department of Health. The primary needs of these old people are material ones, such as food and clothes, suitable housing, medical care and social welfare, and, above all, contact with their fellow human beings and some human love. Disease and old age are not synonymous, and when old age is counted, as it is in this Bill, by adding up birthdays, it is a tragedy because it is the worst possible method of determining age. It is antiquated. It was used in pre-Biblical days and it is still used in a modern state. It is time that this fetish of the birthday was thrown out of the window. We should try to estimate in a scientific manner the age of an individual, before either casting him aside from his work or deciding to provide for him under various social welfare schemes. No modern industry or Government Department should think in terms of birthdays, except perhaps to celebrate the birthday of some important individual—but not someone like for instance the Minister himself— when providing for a man to be retired from his business or his work into the darkness of loneliness. The great thing about elderly people is the psychological effect of retirement. A man may live for 20, 30 or 40 years doing a certain kind of work. He enters as an apprentice, becomes a journeyman and perhaps finally becomes a foreman, all this time associating with groups of individuals of his own character, employed in the same way, living under the same conditions and having the same hours of work as himself. When he arrives at work in the morning he meets them and in the afternoon, at the end of the day. he goes off with them to the local pub before going home. He has his drink, goes home quietly and is welcomed and well fed by his wife. This is repeated. His Saturday afternoons are occupied.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, that is right, I had forgotten about the club.

That is not relevant.

It is relevant, Sir, because I am a bit thirsty after all this. This man has certain habits and they fit in with his character and his general outlook on life. Then, suddenly, it is all gone. I shall not enlarge on that for the moment.

I want to talk of methods by which men can be kept at work after the time when they have become too old perhaps to do a full day’s work. Perhaps they may even be quite young, but old by the reckoning of the hon. the Minister’s Bill. With a little trouble and a little co-operation from the Department of Labour it should not be difficult to keep men at work after the age of 60, men who are well and physiologically young. There is a method which I should like to suggest. Older men have skill which makes up for their possible physical weakness. They rarely spoil anything in delicate work because they have learnt to be careful and because they value their job, which the young to-day do not value to anything like the same extent. The older worker is seldom absent. Absenteeism is a rare occurrence amongst older workers. The employers should appreciate that. One of the main things the Minister could do is to get the elderly people out of the stream of busy traffic. With modern conditions of life the worker is living a long way from his work. While he can compete with the younger worker in the factories, he cannot compete with the rush hour. He cannot be expected to get to his work at eight, because he is the one who will be pushed out of the queue when getting on to the bus; therefore he should be given later starting times. It can be subtracted from his salary if necessary. Similarly, in the afternoon he should be allowed to leave before the traffic rush starts so that he can get home in peace and in the daylight. So many of these older men to-day are being upset by people on the streets because they are out late. It gets dark early now.

I shall let you off at 5 o’clock this afternoon.

No, I am not going. I should like to emphasize the importance of creating an environment for the elderly worker so that he avoids the stresses and strains which are not part of his work. In my own experience I have noticed that if you want to keep an elderly man at work, you have first of all to convince the employer that it pays them. You have to convince the younger worker in the same factory that this older worker is not going to prevent his being promoted. The most important person in the whole set-up of keeping employment for the older worker is the foreman. The foreman is in charge …

Order! I really think that that should be discussed under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Labour.

It is not so much that, Sir. I am trying to draw a picture not of what the Minister has put in his Bill. That is quite simple.

We are now dealing with the Bill.

I want to deal whh what he has left out, Sir. He calls his Bill the Aged Persons Protection Bill. I am talking about the protection of the aged persons. The Minister looks at one side of it. I am trying to give him another side so that he will see where the deficiencies are.

We are only dealing with the side which is contained in the Bill at the moment.

Surely, Sir, we are dealing with the protection of aged persons and the environment and circumstances and the principles which the hon. the Minister should apply. He has just mentioned a few simple details, which is quite easy.

Those aspects of the life of the aged must be dealt with under the Vote of the Minister. The hon. member must deal with the Bill now.

What about the question of the health of the workers? The hon. the Minister talks about having a medical officer with these welfare workers at times. He talks about a debilitated person in the Bill. I do not agree with his description of a debilitated person. The question in regard to debilitated persons is one of the most important sides to this matter. You cannot describe a debilitated person by saying that he is so many years old. That is what the Minister does here. It is a principle. There is so much that is good. Far be it for me to condemn this Bill, but there is so much that is omitted. As they say in the New Testament or in the Book of Common Prayer, the Minister has sins of commission, but his sins of omission are even more serious, as I see it.

For instance, has he thought of the number of old people who are mentally ill? Many of them become mentally ill because of neglect after their retirement. That neglect is hardly mentioned in the Bill. He talks of these debilitated people, but they should never become debilitated. He has not taken steps to prevent debilitation. As I said before, the worst feature of this Bill is the absence of provision for certain services. Among these is the provision for close co-operation with the Department of Health. In theory at present—and even at the passing of this Bill circumstances will not have changed—provision is made for people to obtain medical services free. It is possible that after a great deal of red tape and, if he is lucky, before the old man dies, he will get medical services, but under present conditions it is not possible in actual practice to give prompt and efficient medical service to the lonely old pensioner. He is very often found dead on the floor the next morning, if he is lucky; if he is not lucky, he may lie there for a week. This problem is not dealt with at all, except to mention how they arrive at what they call a debilitated person. They mention the medical practitioner as the one who is able to describe what a debilitated person is. That is about as far as they go, but they do not make provision for services for these people. I say that if the Minister seriously undertakes to study the problem of medical services for these old people, he can very successfully keep large numbers of senile people out of the mental hospitals. He must give these people a sense of security. The greatest thing that worries them is the insecurity of their lives, the loneliness and the inability to communicate with other people.

Order! That point has been raised before.

Very well, Sir. I want to say that I believe that no man who has worked throughout his life should in the latter days of his life have to depend on charity. He should reach his grave without poverty and charity and the State owes him sufficient money on which to live.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the Bill.

Clause 2 mentions pensions, and I am now discussing pensions. It is a misnomer to call it a pension; they are wages the man has earned but has never been paid. If a man works at a trade for the whole of his life, surely that trade can afford to keep him alive until he dies, and it should not be dependent on the whim of the Minister as to what he gets. That trade should support him, and that is what I think the Minister has not taken into account. He has not shown the working people that they themselves must make provision, not individually but as a body, for their old age …

Order! I must call upon the hon. member to come back to the Bill now.

I am sorry about this, because I had hoped to be able to say a few more words on these serious problems. These are mechanical problems that the Minister has tackled. He has merely put into better words the things that his predecessor arranged. I had hoped to be able to show him how to bring more of the milk of human kindness into the work entrusted to him. One of the things which struck me in the past in working with pensioners was the rigid outlook of the welfare worker.

Order! That is irrelevant. This Bill deals with the application of the machinery. The attitude of the welfare worker should be brought to the notice of the Minister under his Vote.

Very well, Sir. I will conclude then by suggesting to the hon. the Minister that he is faced with the problem that we are living longer and that more people are going to live longer, and that his job is to give these people a little peace, comfort and happiness towards the end of their lives and to let them remain in association with their fellows.

My task is to sum up the discussion on the Bill from this side of the House. I think it is appropriate to say that the hon. the Minister has changed considerably. I am sorry for him. I see him sitting there weighted down with metaphorical garlands which have been hung round his neck. Those garlands are perhaps more acceptable to him than the garlands he has worn on other occasions, as they are garlands which he has earned by way of praise for what he has done in respect of this Bill.

I think it is necessary for us to have the record straight on this matter. One of the four major principles of this Bill is the registration of institutions which care for the aged, but that is not something new in our legislation. The Natal Provincial Council has had such legislation for some 30 years, and any institution in Natal which cares for the aged and for the chronic ill has to register and is governed by regulations and is controlled by the Provincial Administration of Natal. Therefore I can congratulate the hon. the Minister on following the good example which the United Party Administration of Natal has set. I make this point because it was only last year …

Order! I think the hon. member must come back to the Bill. I cannot allow a general discussion.

Sir, I am dealing with the general principle and I would like to quote an appeal directed by the Natal Provincial Council through the Administrator-in-Executive to the Minister only last year asking for this very measure. I submit with respect that this is an official approach to the Minister; it is a motion moved by the two members of the Provincial Council whose constituencies cover my constituency.

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

May I quote this motion which reads “That the Administrator-in-Executive Committee be requested to press the Department of Social Welfare to take more positive and active steps to provide accommodation and care for the chronic sick and aged.” I quote it specifically because in that debate, Nationalist Party members opposed …

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member for Durban (Point) is pointing out that similar legislation is already in existence, and I think it is germane to a discussion on this Bill to say how this new legislation can improve on the old.

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. member must abide by it.

I abide by your ruling, Sir, and I say it is pleasant to see that this Bill has received support in this House in contrast to what happened in Natal.

Now, I want to turn to the question of the building of old-age homes themselves with specific reference to this Bill and correspondence which has taken place, starting with a letter which I wrote on 11th December, 1964, and which was replied to on 15th December, 1964, some three years ago, in which this matter of old-age homes, with specific reference in this case to a particular old-age home, was first raised with the hon. the Minister. I wrote to him finally this year in January, and I want to ask now whether the hon. the Minister will be good enough to give me the details for which I asked on the 24th January of this year. I asked him whether he could give an indication of the extent to which, in terms of the contemplated legislation, the Government was prepared to subsidize an organization which wished to create an old-age home, a home for the chronic ill, with particular reference to—

There is some concern amongst certain of these institutions that the result of this measure will be to place institutions which are to-day catering for the aged in a strait-jacket of conformity, whereas many of these institutions feel that it would be far better to have diversity in the type of homes provided. We are making provision in this Bill for regulations which will govern each and every home, which must be registered, which must be controlled and which must conform to specific regulations. I would like to ask the Minister to give an assurance that in drafting these regulations he will do so in such a way as not to interfere with the individual needs of a particular institution, and that he will not try to impose a blue-print on all homes, which will lead to regimentation and to the turning of homes, where they may be providing a particular service for a particular type of person, into such a stereotype form that they get the atmosphere of a hospital or the atmosphere of an institution which loses its personal touch and its personal character. I believe it is important that such regimentation should not take place; that people should not be obliged to live in a home, whether it be in Cape Town, Durban or Johannesburg, where the conditions must be identical and where they must conform exactly to the same pattern. I hope that the standards will be standards that will take into account the extent of the needs of the different people who are being catered for. Then another concern which has been expressed is that the regulations will provide for the race of the staff employed. I deal with this specifically because in 99 per cent of the homes catering for the aged and the chronic ill, they are obliged to rely on non-European nursing-aids simply because they cannot get qualified or semi-qualified white nurses or white help of the type that is required to provide the services required by the chronic ill in particular. The Natal regulations provide that there shall be a qualified resident nursing sister in charge of any such institution, and so there is in each of these homes; there is a qualified nursing sister but these homes have to rely to a large extent on non-European nurse-aids for the often unpleasant services which have to be rendered. I hope the Minister will alleviate the fear which has been expressed that there will be an attempt to stop this practice, because that would automatically lead to the closing down of homes, simply through the non-availability of staff. We would welcome an assurance on this matter.

There is another aspect of this Bill to which I would like to refer and that is a matter which I also raised with the hon. the Minister for the first time in 1964. I now have a whole file referring to this particular problem. In this Bill we are being asked to repeal the old-age Pensions Act, and to substitute for it the provisions in this measure dealing with old-age pensions. As I say, I wrote to the Minister for the first time in June. 1964. I then wrote again in July, 1964. I received a reply in September, 1964. I asked a question in this House in February, 1965, and the reply was: “The matter is still under consideration.”

Order! I think the hon. member must leave the history alone and come back to the Bill. The House is not interested in his correspondence with the Minister.

I then asked whether I could now have the answer which was promised to me on the 17th February of this year, when the Minister said, “I intend introducing a Bill on the protection of the aged during this session of Parliament.” Sir, we now have the Bill before us and I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us what he intends, the terms of this Bill, to do in relation to this problem of the aged person who is a beneficiary drawing a pension or a disability grant and who is hospitalized in a State institution, whether it be a hospital, a mental institution or some other institution, and thereupon immediately ceased to be a beneficiary. Those people may have a room or a little flat or a little house but immediately they go into hospital their pensions stop and they have nothing whatsoever with which to pay the rent for the room which they must keep while they are in hospital. If they have an attendant’s allowance or a servant looking after them they have to retain the services of that person. If they happen to own a building they have to pay rates: they have to pay for lights and meet other costs. This matter has been pending now for three years. If these people are hospitalized spasmodically, for a month now …

You can raise this under my Vote.

Sir, I have raised it under his Vote and the Minister has time and again referred me to this Bill. Now I am asking him specifically. This is the question which I put to the Minister on the 17th February this year—

1. (1) Whether the committee considering pension problems has considered the question of the withdrawal of pensions, allowances and grants in the case of persons who are hospitalized; if so,
2. (2) whether the committee has reported to him;
3. (3) whether he will make a statement in this regard?

To this the Minister replied “Yes” to (1) and (2). In respect of (3) he said—

Well, there is your reply— provision will be made in the regulations.

I raised this matter under the Minister’s Vote last year but got nowhere. Here we have a Bill before us in which we are being asked to empower the Minister to make certain regulations. The Minister wants from us a blank cheque …

Order! That is a matter which the hon. member can raise in committee.

I should like to have your guidance, Sir. Are we not entitled before we vote for a clause empowering the Minister to take certain action to ask him what action he intends taking?

But the Minister has given the assurance.

May I ask the Minister what he intends doing, and how he intends dealing with the problem? The Minister has given me an assurance that he will deal with this matter and I am asking him to tell me how he intends doing it. This is important if the Minister wants us to give him powers to do certain things. We should know how he intends applying those powers.

There is another aspect with which the Minister can deal by means of regulation. This is the present form of application for a pension. He is asking us now to give him the power to create by means of regulations the framework within which pensions will be dealt with. He does not want to be bound by law. In the past Parliament determined this by means of an Act. In this Bill we are being asked to repeal that Act and in place thereof to authorize the Minister by regulation to prescribe for the handling of pensions, the amount to be paid, the conditions which will apply, etc. I should like the Minister to give some assurances in this regard. The Bill says the Minister may make regulations provided he does nol decrease the amount of pension payable. But it is not only by the amount of pension that a pensioner can be affected. He can also be affected by the conditions surrounding the pension—for instance, through the application of the means test or the method of valuation. To-day the normal procedure is an announcement of an increase in pensions by the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech and where a change has to be made in the conditions—conditions which admittedly the Minister prescribes to-day—it will, in terms of this Bill, be handled by way of regulation. The hon. member for Umbilo raised a point of the utmost importance when he appealed for publicity and for the widest dissemination of the regulations made under this Bill when it has become law. I also appeal that not only in respect of the amount of pension but also in respect of the method of application no harm will be done to any pensioner and that no pensioner will be placed at a disadvantage; that there will be no discrimination against the pensioner through administrative action, a discrimination against a certain group or class of pensioners.

I also appeal to the hon. the Minister to simplify the application form for pensions. At the moment an applicant must reply, as far as his assets alone are concerned, to 330 questions. These are in the main elderly people, people who cannot themselves furnish that information. I have the form here. Thereon it is staged that every question “must be clearly answered. A dash or stroke is not acceptable”. If you count it you will find that an applicant has to write “Yes” or “No” 330 times. However, in 99.9 per cent of the cases not more than 10 of these questions are in actual fact ever answered. I think it will be in the interest of the pensioner if the Minister could give a little attention to this matter by simplifying the method of application for a pension. For instance, I fail to see why a separate page cannot be printed for use only by persons who are farmers. A person who is not a farmer can then just write “Not applicable” across it. Now we ha-e questions about farming scattered all over the questionnaire—the number of goats, sheep, cattle, ploughs, etc.

You can just out a line through it. You are now only wasting our time.

That is not allowed. The present form specifically states that a dash or stroke is not acceptable as an answer. And yet that hon. member says one can just put a line through it. But that is against the regulations. What that hon. member therefore says he is doing …

Order! The hon. member should take no notice of interjections.

I should like to ask the Minister to simplify this form for those of us who abide by the instructions. I can think of at least eight different changes in this form without sacrificing any information at all. I know the Minister may say that he wants everything covered in one form but if that is absolutely essential the form should be drawn up in sections so that each person need only fill in that section or sections applicable to him specifically.

There is another aspect of this Bill I should like to deal with, an aspect which has so far received very little attention—that is, the question of the chronically ill, as opposed to the aged. Figures have been quoted in this respect and I should like the Minister to confirm them or otherwise. One hon. member said there were 166 homes at the moment and 51 still under consideration. Can the Minister break these figures down into homes for aged persons who are fit and homes for the chronic ill, people who do not require hospitalization but simply nursing attention? Particularly in regard to those contemplated, I want to ask whether the Minister will tell us how many institutions are contemplated for building in the near future and what proportion of them will deal with this group of the chronic ill because they constitute the main problem. In regard to my own constituency I want to say that an institution there asked me to take this matter up in 1964 when they said that they had been negotiating for some long period. At that time the matter was in the hands of the Department of Social Welfare. The reply from the hon. the Minister’s predecessor was that it would be dealt with immediately it came from the Department of Social Welfare. That was in the middle of 1964. Now in 1967 finality has not yet been reached. At last a preliminary grant has been made. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the same sort of circumstances will prevail under this Bill or whether this will avoid that long delay and make it possible for a voluntary organization, which is able to build a home with the money available to it but, requiring a subsidy, to do so in less than four or five years. In my constituency the ground is there in Prince Street. It has been available now for five years.

Order! That has nothing to do with this Bill.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give an assurance or indication of how the application of this Act will make possible a faster and more comprehensive provision for this group of people. Here there is a new principle in the Bill and I accept it and welcome it. For the first time the Government accepts responsibility for actually building a home rather than subsidizing the building of a home. That is a new principle which is welcome. Before that the Government used to lend the money or give the money to a private institution.

[Inaudible.]

I understood from one of the replies, and you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that I may not refer to the background, that the Government assisted other organizations to provide these homes but did not build them itself.

Actually we have a number of homes in existence already.

For the chronic ill or for the aged?

For the aged, but it could also be done for the chronically ill.

I am referring specifically to the chronically ill. There are homes for the aged but I know of none for the chronically ill. It is a step forward but as the hon. the Minister will deal with the matter I need not take it any further now. I want to conclude by saying that we welcome the good provisions in this Bill, and we support the Bill but we hope that in the implementation of the Bill we will have the promises turned into reality, the promises we have heard in the speeches on both sides of this House when the Bill was welcomed.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to express my gratitude and appreciation for the interesting and high level which has, with one minor exception, been maintained throughout this debate. I will not worry about the minor exception and I do not think the hon. member who was responsible for it will either. In the second place I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to my predecessor who was actually responsible for the appointment of the team who undertook the work of investigation which led to this legislation which we have before the House to-day. In this connection I also want to express my gratitude and appreciation to the members who served in that team. In particular I want to mention the chairman of the team, Dr. Brummer. Dr. Brummer retires on pension on 1st June and then exchanges his official career for the status of an elderly person. In view of his retirement we want to wish him everything of the best and I also want to place on record my appreciation for the many long years of service which Dr. Brummer had in the Department of Social Welfare. He was actually doing welfare work before a Department of Social Welfare existed and when it was only a subdivision of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. I therefore want to express my appreciation for his exceptional work and I want to avail myself of this opportunity of announcing that as from 1st June he will be succeeded by Dr. J. A. Grobler who is at present head of technical services in the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. He will then become Deputy-Secretary in place of Dr. Brummer. The other members who served on this team are all people who have had exceptional experience in welfare work and welfare matters. Professor Lamont was a member; also Dr. Pitt, who is at present chairman of the Welfare Board; Mrs. Viljoen, also a member of the Welfare Board; Mr. Vorster, one of the Deputy-Secretaries of the Department; and Mr. Louw, who was a member and secretary of the team. Allow me to express a word of thanks in particular to Mr. Louw, even if it is only for the sentimental reason that Danie Louw and myself were classmates for seven years in the same school. I am glad that he could have a share in this work and I am particularly grateful that he undertook further study for the Department in connection with the requirements of elderly persons and the care and treatment of elderly persons outside homes. I am mentioning this to show that with this report and with this legislation the work of investigation and research by my Department has not come to a standstill. This Bill contains only the comprehensive principles according to which we will in future work, but the Department’s method of action and the various steps which will be taken from time to time will be adapted and carried out in accordance with the experience we are gaining by going deeper into this matter. That is one of the directions which the Department of Social Welfare has taken recently, namely that of going deeper into the various directions in which welfare and provision work are being done.

We have had interesting speeches here, from the taboo stories of the hon. member for Hill-brow to the reminiscences of the hon. member for Waterberg, of the games that he played with the elderly people. He need only have played “high cockalorum” for us, then we would almost have had the full series. I do not want to go into all the various minor points which were mentioned here. They are important points but they are matters which could be discussed fruitfully when the Social Welfare and Pensions Vote is being dealt with. I want to confine myself more specifically to what has crystallized out of this debate in so far as it concerns the Bill before us and the treatment of the aged.

In the first place I think that what has crystallized out of this discussion is that there is no difference of opinion, in regard to the basic approach, between the Government and the Opposition and South Africa as a whole in regard to the fact that welfare care, and for that reason also care of the aged, is not a Government responsibility in the first and last instance, but that it is the responsibility of the community and that it is a community service which has to be tackled and carried out by welfare bodies, church bodies and so on, supplemented by subsidies and assistance from the Government. In regard to that—and this is what crystallized here—there is no difference of opinion. This brings me to the question put by the hon. member for Durban (Point) in regard to the erection of homes for debilitated aged persons. Although the Bill does make provision for homes for aged persons as well as for debilitated aged persons to be erected from Government funds directly by the Government, it is our policy rather to encourage and make it possible for welfare bodies, church bodies and private initiative to render those services. The State, through the Department of Community Development, provides loans for the erection of those homes.

The total amount?

No, not for the total amount, but for a maximum amount per person who can be accommodated in that home. If we were to provide the total amount we would be depriving the community of the privilege of making a contribution to the care of its aged people. I never want to deprive the community of South Africa of that privilege. I think it is a privilege which we have, which our communities have, which our church bodies have, and which our welfare bodies have, i.e. the privilege of doing organization work, because it is only by doing organization work that they can rouse public interest in the care of those aged persons. Only in that way can they rouse a lively interest on the part of the public in the requirements of the aged persons. Only in that way can the public contribute towards helping to protect the aged persons against loneliness. That is why I do not want to subsidize them in full. That is why I do not want the State to bear all the costs. That is why I want, precisely by this means, to stimulate the interest of the community so that the community will also contribute its share, so that it becomes the community’s institution and so that it becomes the community which undertakes that work of providing for the aged. As the hon. member is aware the subsidies have recently been increased, and the part which the community has had to contribute is relatively small in comparison with the Government contribution.

May we have the details?

These are details which can be discussed under my Vote. In the same way, I think, it is generally agreed that the care of the aged should not only take place in homes but also in housing schemes which have been located in the community or can be distributed amongst the community. In this regard there are also various other ways in which the community can be helped. Here too, private initiative, welfare bodies and so on, may take the initiative, or the local authorities may take the initiative. They can obtain housing funds, either economic funds or sub-economic funds. In their normal housing schemes they can make provision for aged persons. In one of the schemes which I opened last year, shortly after I became Minister of Community Development—it was at Colode near Springs, the first persons to whom a house was allocated in the Housing Commission Scheme were in fact an elderly couple. In this way provision is being made for semidetached houses, groups of houses which are being built. There are various ways in which these people may be provided with care and housing in order to keep them within the community. For very sound reasons my Department feels strongly in favour of keeping the aged persons within the community as long as it is possible to prevent them from becoming lonely. But I am beginning to wonder with increasing regularity whether the time will not come in the life of a person who is growing older when he no longer finds it possible to keep in touch with the younger people in the community. I wonder whether a stage is not reached when they begin to visit people of their own age and in fact it is only people of their own age who can help to save them from becoming lonely. There comes a time in the life of persons who are growing older when they cannot live all by themselves, or scattered throughout the community. They must then be helped to get away, to get into a group of their own kind so that they can rid themselves there of their lonely existence. This is something in regard to which I do not have enough information. It is just a random thought I am expressing here and one which is my own and not so much that of my Department. I feel very strongly that we should do much more careful research in order to determine whether we are always on the right road when we say that persons who are growing older and aged persons must be kept in the community as long as possible. I agree, but then I ask myself this question: Does the stage not arrive when it is better that we bring these people together in some way or other so that they can defeat their loneliness in one another’s company? It happens so easily that a person begins to reach the age where he no longer wants to converse only with young people. He feels that he is in the way, particularly in our modern, hectic society. I do not want to elaborate any further on this difficult question. I only want to say that an investigation will be instituted in that direction and that we will determine what is best in this regard. I am mentioning it to you to indicate that we are doing everything in our power to prevent loneliness amongst our aged persons and that we should therefore—and here I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Durban (Central)—do much more to prepare our people for their old age. I think we must prepare them for what is waiting for them when they become older. In that direction we can do a great deal more in South Africa. I think it is a task which various bodies which are associated with it will have to take up. I will direct my energies towards seeing to it that the bodies in question do what is necessary in that direction.

You will have to join the United Party very soon now.

I was talking about preparation and education of people who are growing older. So I think that the problem of preparation and education is disappearing. That is also what is happening to the United Party.

What about Worcester? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister must not indulge in irrelevancy.

Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to say that it is a sign of senility to say that one has won when one has lost. Arising from what the hon. member for Durban (Central) said in regard to the preparation of people for their old age, I just want to say that I will not go into more detail now in regard to what we are doing for debilitated aged persons, etc. He spoke about what we should do to prevent debilitation of the aged. I do not think that this is the place to discuss it. It can be done on other occasions. All that is being done in this Bill is to say how one must act if one has debilitated aged persons who need help. But the work of prevention, which is very important, and the care necessary to prevent somebody from becoming debilitated, which is equally important, does not form part of this Bill. It is an important task which in our country is unfortunately divided up to too great an extent amongst various bodies and which for that reason perhaps cannot be carried out as effectively as it ought to be. This is also something which it may pay to examine in due course.

The hon. members for Umbilo and Hill-brow spoke about the planning. The hon. member for Umbilo said that in terms of this Bill it could be possible that various existing homes for the aged might be closed down, and he asked whether there was sufficient planning in regard to what would subsequently be done with those aged people. The hon. member for Hillbrow placed the emphasis on the rate of planning within the overall community planning. At this stage I do not want to reply fully to that. It is sufficient to say that quite a few years have elapsed since my Department, after careful investigation, began to discover where the bottlenecks were in regard to the provision of care for the aged. As a result provision has been made for the necessary means of making it easier to supply them with that care. In this way one of the problems was that although the construction of the home— the hon. member for Waterberg does not like the word—was being subsidized, and the money was being supplied by the Department of Community Development at low rates of interest, and although the furniture and the maintenance thereof was being subsidized by the Department of Social Welfare, there was no provision for the purchasing of land or for the initial undertakings in that regard. As a result of that, as hon. members know, a special amount was placed on the Estimates a few years ago, which was placed at the disposal of the Department of Social Welfare. It was that step in particular which was responsible for the fact that in the past three or four years we more than doubled our provision for the aged in institutions, and the rate at which homes for the aged are being expanded and homes for the debilitated are being constructed and new homes are being built is increasing steadily. I have no doubt that our welfare organizations and our church bodies are so alive to this problem of our elderly people that they will make adequate provision in that regard. The two Departments which deal with the matter, with the provision of the funds and the subsidization, are doing everything in their power to be of assistance to the organizations in order to get those institutions erected. So I have no fears on that score.

The hon. member for Umbilo also asked whether, in terms of the subsidizing which will take place, additional auxiliary services such as the mobile feeding scheme and the home assistant schemes cannot be subsidized. Here I want to express a word of warning. Although I appreciate the value of this particular scheme and although there is provision that schemes of this nature can be taken into consideration for subsidies, we must be careful that such a scheme is not tackled and subsidized as a separate scheme; for when one has the so-called “meals on wheels” scheme without it forming a part of a community centre or something of that nature, one could be contributing to the loneliness of the aged. Because the food is brought to the room or the home of the aged person once a day it results in that aged person never leaving his room or his home, and that could mean further loneliness. That is why I say that if one is able to combine a scheme, such as the one in Pietermaritzburg, where one has a meeting place where food for the aged living in their own little places is provided at a central point so that they can come together there for their meals, and only the meals of those who can no longer do that, or who cannot do so temporarily as a result of illness, is taken to their homes, then that is the kind of scheme we should like to see, but not what is normally understood under “meals on wheels”, or a mobile unit which delivers food at each home. We are afraid of schemes like that because it may so easily be conducive to greater loneliness. But if it is properly integrated with a community service which helps to take care of the aged and which can help to maintain their social activities and render a service to them, then such a scheme can in fact be subsidized.

There are still a few isolated questions. Actually the questions asked by the hon. member for Durban (Point) are all questions which could have been dealt with under my Vote, but I am dealing with those questions which concern the regulations. The hon. member gave a twist to some of his questions to try and get them in there, but he did not always succeed in doing so. As regards the question of those pensions of persons who have a pension but who then have to enter an institution, I want to say that where it has been the case in the past that they lost the pension it has already been decided that they may in such cases retain their pensions for periods up to three months to provide for essential expenditure. If it is a case of a person who has to be taken up permanently into an institution to receive care it is revised in the light of those circumstances, but the person retains the pension for three months in any case.

The hon. member also raised the question of the simplification of application forms. The power to draft application forms is of course not a new power in terms of this Bill; it is a power which already exists in terms of the 1962 Act, but a team has already been appointed to go into this problem carefully and fully for the precise purpose of simplifying the application forms, and in particular also of adapting them to the mechanization which is in progress in the Department.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) asked me what the position is in regard to widows below the pensionable age, who can no longer work. That is of course not a matter which can be covered by this legislation because they can only be assisted by means of a disability grant, but I want to assure him that “disability” does not always mean only medically disabled; it also means socially disabled. When a person is socially disabled owing to educational qualifications, or owing to scarcity of the type of work which such a person can do in that neighbourhood, then such a person may be regarded as being socially unsuited for work and may be granted a pension. Hon. members must please not go and create socially disabled persons as a result of what I have just said here! The hon. member and various other hon. members spoke about the need for the aged to be kept in employ as long as possible. I do not want to discuss that now. Last year when my Vote was under discussion I had something to say about that matter, and we are still finding ways and means of keeping persons who are growing older productive in the community as long as possible. We have the deferred pension scheme which makes it possible for them to draw a larger pension later on if they continue working, and we have various other schemes. It is not the time now to go into them, but that is the principle on which we work. I shall convey to my colleagues in other Departments the suggestions which hon. members have made here which deal directly or indirectly with the matter.

The hon. member for Boland referred to the provision for the Coloured aged. That is a matter which he should take up with the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs; unforunately I cannot give him a reply; I am not responsible for that. The hon. member also asked me why provision was being made in clause 7 (2), which lays down the residential qualifications for old age pension grants, only for Whites who were resident in South-West Africa and not for Coloureds. This provision was taken over unaltered from our existing legislation; it has been like that for many years, and if the hon. member can make out a case for its revision then he can make representation to me and I shall inquire into the matter.

The hon. member for Umbilo asked me why reference is being made to Chinese for the first time in this Bill. We must admit and accept that we have a permanent Chinese community in the country, and that amongst them there are also aged persons, and that care for the aged is also being carried out amongst them and will have to be carried out in future. In terms of the Population Registration Act Chinese are included in the broader Asiatic group but the Chinese community is objecting to being classified together with the Indians in one group. Well, then, if a group of people accept our principle of apartheid, then we comply gladly with their request to be regarded as a separate group.

On what basis are they dealt with in terms of the means test and as far as their rate of pension is concerned? There is a different basis for each racial group. Under which racial group would the Chinese people fall?

I think they are being dealt with as Coloured persons.

That means that they get half the pensions paid to Whites.

Then the hon. member for Umbilo also referred to the adjustment of the scales on which old-age pensions are being paid, and the means test, etc., all of which will in future take place by means of regulation. The hon. member for Durban (Point) and other hon. members also referred to that. They said that it would in future not take place by way of legislation but by way of regulation. I want to reassure the hon. member for Durban (Point) in this regard. The Bill provides clearly that no amendment of a regulation which is prejudicial to pensioners, in other words, which will cause the recipient’s pension to be reduced, can take place without Parliamentary approval. It is only where improvements are being introduced that that can be done by means of regulation. I doubt whether this measure will be promulgated and the regulations in terms of it drawn up before the end of this session, and that is why I am of the opinion that the new concessions which were announced in the Budget Speech will be adopted during the present year by legislation in the normal way. In fact, we will arrange matters in this way because I think that it is better, when the regulations are being drawn up, that we set out the position as it will be from 1st October in the regulations. Then the hon. member for Umbilo also asked me whether we could not give more publicity to changes and improvements which are made in regard to pensions. I want to agree with him that there is much ignorance among the public in regard to precisely what their rights and privileges are. I want to tell the hon. member that each time a change is made my Department sends a summary of what the changes imply to all members of Parliament, to all welfare bodies and to all interested persons. It is also put at the disposal of the Press. Year after year the hon. member comes and on those grounds he draws up his exposition, but what is strange about the matter is that when my Department makes the particulars available, then it is not news for the newspapers, but when that hon. member compiles it then it is news for certain newspapers because then he has done something, and if he has done something, then it is news for those newspapers. Let me mention another example to you. The hon. member referred to the fact that recently he had once again had to make public at great inconvenience and personal expense to himself what these benefits included, but, Mr. Speaker, I was quite ready in the Budget Debate to deal fully with these benefits and present a clear picture of them because the hon. member for Pinetown, who introduced the Budget Debate on behalf of the Opposition, stated emphatically in his speech that he would leave it to the hon. member for Umbilo to go into a detailed discussion of this matter. In other words, the question of pensions. It was clearly an indication on the hon. member for Pinetown’s part that the hon. member for Umbilo would discuss pension matters during the course of the debate. I was ready and waiting for him, with all the particulars, because I did not want to speak before he did; I wanted to hear what he had to say, but apparently his Whips did not give him a turn to speak and he was forced to publish his speech in the newspapers. Even if the hon. member does do that, if we in this way—if we in all possible ways—bring these matters to the attention of the public, then I do not mind. Even if the hon. member benefits from it. it does not matter to me. as long as people ultimately know about it. But then the hon. member must not accuse me of not giving publicity to this matter. We shall continue to bring it to the public’s attention. I shall try and investigate other ways and means to bring it to the public’s attention in a better way. The practice is that all welfare bodies, all bodies working with these people, as well as members of Parliament, are fully informed by my Department in regard to the changes which have been made. For that reason I do not think it is right that the hon. member should accuse us of not giving enough publicity to the changes which have been effected.

I want to conclude by once more conveying my gratitude and appreciation to all for their valued contributions in this debate. I believe that by accepting the principle of this measure we are taking a step which will signal a new era in South Africa for our elderly persons— many of us fall into that category already and others will be there soon.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Sir, I presume that in South Africa we have always been aware of the value of water, but we did not always think of the fact that valuable material should not be wasted. I do not think that there is another essential commodity which is so casually used, as if water is there just to be used, and that at everybody’s whim. The prolonged drought which we have just had brought home to all serious-thinking persons the fact that water has to be used in a planned and economic way. The Bill before the House is an attempt to enable the Minister to enforce better planned and, therefore, more economic use of the waters in certain areas along the Vaal River. I hope that I shall have the support of the House to that end. It is estimated that in one of our oldest and best-organized irrigation districts water is used only 48 per cent efficiently, while we have statistics to show that in other parts of the world water is used up to 65 per cent of its full potential. Therefore it should be possible also in South Africa to attain that standard.

In this age of planning and, may I say, abnormal development, it will be the endeavour of my Department and myself to speed up the supply of the necessary water for general development. But the supply of water, which is an expensive undertaking, must go hand in hand with the more economic use of that water. To do just that I am trying to clamp down on the wastage of water. I shall now explain the Bill more in detail.

Clause 1 of the Bill has been introduced with the object of enabling the Minister to deliver water to the Municipality of Kimberley in a more economical way than the present prescribed method of using the river bed as a channel for the conveyance of such water. The present system involves heavy water losses by evaporation and seepage from the river bed. In times of drought these losses tend to increase relative to the diminishing flow in the river. This is due to the fact that river losses are more or less constant regardless of the quantity of water flowing in the river. It would therefore be in the interests of water conservation if the water needs of Kimberley could in future be supplied by way of concrete lined canals and pipelines whereby transmission losses will be reduced considerably. The possibility of achieving such a system exists by the simple expediency of extending the present Vaal Hartz-Klipdam-Barkly canal to deliver water at the Kimberley municipal intake works. It speaks for itself that when the Government alters the delivery system to Kimberley, the Government will have to bear the costs. The clause does not affect the water rights vested in the Kimberley Municipality by virtue of Act No. 38 of 1934. Kimberley will still receive its full allocation of water as conferred on it by the said Act, whether by way of the river bed or by way of a concrete lined canal.

The benefits that the implementing of this clause will bring about are twofold, namely, firstly a saving in river losses and secondly, a saving of the flushing water which in terms of the present Act, amounts to 1,000 cusecs for 24 hours every three months. In times of water shortage these savings are of considerable importance and I have no hesitation in introducing this provision.

Clause 2 of the Bill empowers the State President to proclaim regulations whereby all persons who abstract water from the Vaal River shall be required to install water meters on their abstraction works. It is my duty to ensure that each and every riparian owner or industrial or municipal user of Vaal River water receives his legitimate share of the available water. It would be a hopeless task to control the abstraction of water from a large river such as the Vaal River unless water meters were installed at each point of abstraction. Without such meters the Department would need an enormous force of water bailiffs for the sole purpose of patrolling and policing water abstraction. Through the introduction of water meters the patrolling staff can be kept to the absolute minimum, resulting in an important saving of manpower. Suitable water meters are available and there is no cause for any person to object to the installation of such meters. Provisions exist in the Water Act whereby the cost of installing such meters can be subsidized and financed by way of irrigation loans. Clause 3 is the short title of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for the explanation that he has given us in connection with this Bill. There are one or two points with which I should like to deal at this Second Reading of the Bill. Some of the points will obviously have to be traversed again in more detail at the Committee Stage. Perhaps I can put my points at this stage, and perhaps the Minister would be so kind as to reply to them. During the intervening period between now and the Committee Stage we will have an opportunity to think the matter over and then we can come back to them when we are in Committee.

One of the points puzzling us is the relationship of this Bill to the Bill amending the Water Act which is now before a Select Committee. On the face of it there does not seem to be a necessity for this Bill as the other Bill is now before a Select Committee.

The 1965 Act does not cover this Vaal River area. There is a special Act for this area.

That is the point. The Minister says that it is a special Act. And that was the conclusion that we had come to. As the Minister says, the 1956 Act does not cover the supply of water under this Act to the Kimberley Municipality. This Act, No. 38 of 1934, was in fact in the nature of parliamentary validation of an agreement between two parties of which the Kimberley Municipality was one; it was a beneficiary under the agreement. That agreement having been entered into, it was embodied in a bill which was validated by Parliament, and that has led to certain of the folk concerned talking about their entrenched rights to water from the Vaal which they had been obtaining in the past. They call them their entrenched rights.

They are retaining that right.

Yes, the Minister says that they are retaining that right. In a moment I want to explain how I think that they feel their right may be prejudiced.

May I in passing at once say that I think there is no doubt that we on this side of the House will support the Minister entirely where he emphasizes the need to defend and protect all our water supplies and the importance of water here in South Africa. I have just been reading a scientific paper which the hon. member for Constantia kindly gave to me. This is in connection with a much wider basis of water supply in South Africa, associated with these schemes coming into consideration, such as Oxbow, Ruacana falls and the scheme on the Zambesi, where certain scientific and economic investigators went so far as to say that industrial development in South Africa one of these days would be limited by the amount of water that is available. This can limit the industrial expansion of South Africa. We cannot make it any more important than that. We therefore agree entirely with the hon. the Minister in regard to the importance of the issue. I think that we must also agree with him entirely that the releasing of water down the channel of the Vaal for the purpose of supplying Kimberley and other users is prodigal of the use of water. It is wasteful. It is not a good method in terms of modern methods of water conveyance, it does not husband or help to preserve our water resources; it wastes them. It is a wasteful method because by evaporation and percolation the water supply diminishes. We therefore agree on this point.

Let me start with clause 2 and say that we have no objection whatever to the introduction of powers enforcing water meters. That is fair. When an allocation of water has been made to a user, I think that those who have other rights and the controlling authority, in this case the State, or any other authority, has a right to say. “You have been allotted that amount of water; now we must arrange machinery to see that you do not take more than your fair share”. That means a water meter. We have no objection to clause 2.

It is with clause 1 that we have difficulty. I want to put the case to the hon. the Minister which has led to this claim that Kimberley at any rate had certain entrenched rights in regard to water. This drought which we have just experienced happens to be a good example because we have this position as far as the relevant Act. Act No. 38 of 1934 was concerned, which was an Act validating an agreement arrived at between certain parties, whereby certain obligations rested upon the controlling authority, in this case being the present Department of Water Affairs. When this last drought made its effect felt, Kimberley could have stood on the provisions of the 1938 Act and said, “That is provided for in law and we want it. You cannot let water go down to the Vaal-Hartz scheme or anywhere else until we have got our full quota of water in terms of what is provided in the Act”. That was the legal position. To the credit of Kimberley, they did not do that. Kimberley voluntarily cut their own consumption by 25 per cent. They did it voluntarily to meet the general position which had arisen on account of the shortage of water throughout the whole area. They therefore made their contribution on a voluntary basis. What they virtually did was this. They said, “Here we have entrenched rights but we are going to play our part and not adopt a dog in the manger attitude. Other people are suffering and we are prepared to suffer along with them”. The Bill, as far as clause 1 is concerned, does seem in a sense to do away with those protected rights, not only as regards the release of the flushing water, but in respect of the level in the reserve above the weir.

Could you please repeat that last point?

I said it also does away with the preservation of the level fixed at one foot below the lip of the conservation weir—the weir from which pumping takes place and above which there is a dam. The water may not drop below 12 inches below the lip of that weir. That is the one proviso. The proviso in regard to the flushing water is the other proviso. I quite appreciate that if the town is to get its water by a means other than down the channel of the Vaal, naturally those provisos fall away, because the water is not there. They are getting it from another source. They are getting it by means of a cement lined channel or by pipes. They may even be getting it elsewhere. It is not only Kimberley which gets this water. There are other users. It is quite clear from Act 38 of 1934 that, under section 6, permits can be issued to the people who are riparian to the Vaal and also to those who are not riparian. I cannot find this provision right now, but I shall do so later. That apparently has been the case in the past. The first particular point I put to the Minister is this: With this Bill becoming law, will those users of water who are using it to-day, apart from the Municipality of Kimberley, have their rights protected so that they will not in any way have their rights diminished by reason of the fact that the water, instead of coming down the channel of the Vaal, from which they abstract it at the present time, comes down in a pipe or in a cement lined channel? Will their rights be protected in terms of clause 2, where they in any case will have to supply meters to see that the water which they abstract is no more than that which they are permitted to have? It is in regard to the rights of both the riparian and the non-riparian owners, provided for in the 1934 Act. that we are anxious to get an assurance from the hon. the Minister.

It is clear from the Bill. The Bill does not affect them at all.

When one reads clause 1 of the Bill, which adds a new subsection (4) to section 11 of the Act, and one reads Act 38 of 1934, there is no guarantee to the Municipality of Kimberley, nor to the owners who may have permits at the present time. I do not know who they are, but it is quite clearly provided for. Both riparian and non-riparian owners were entitled to get a permit from the Minister under section 11. I assume that those permits were issued, otherwise there would have been no reason for clause 2 of the Bill, which provides that water meters must be installed.

[Inaudible.]

We would like an assurance that their rights are in fact protected in this Bill. Let me come to one of the difficulties. We talk about the protection of the rights of these people. Their rights can be protected as long as the water is there to give them. That is basic, as we see it.

In law, if everybody else went short, Kimberley was entitled to 100 per cent of its supply. As we read Act No. 38, if there is an overall shortage in the future, Kimberley will, pro rata, receive less.

Why? Where do you get that from?

If that is the Minister’s interpretation, I am very pleased to have it.

There is nothing of that sort in the Bill.

There is nothing to say that it is so in the Bill. I am sorry. Clause 1 is the provision that has given rise to the possibility of there being two meanings.

But it says … Oh, I am sorry.

I appreciate the difficulty the Minister is in. That is why I say that in the Committee Stage there are certain points like this that we may be able to discuss, because then it will give the Minister a chance to argue our points from time to time. Let me point out that clause 1 says—

That is what they are entitled to. Then it goes on: “in such manner as he may determine, whether by” doing it down the channel by means of a canal or pipeline or whatever it may be, provided that, if he does it in what way, there will be no water passed down the channel of the Vaal. We accept that, if the Minister is going to provide it by pipeline, they cannot also expect it to come down the valley of the Vaal. If they receive it by pipeline, that is that. But if there is an overall shortage, is not this Bill then qualified by the Water Act of 1956?

The Water Act does not cover this at all.

Well, then that is an assurance. That is the assurance that we sought.

If the Water Act covered this, I would not have to have this Bill at all.

Fair enough, we accept that. So that, in fact, the legal position of the Municipality of Kimberley is that whereas in law, in this last drought, they could have demanded that they enjoy compliance with the conditions under which their full quota of water should have been supplied to them, they did not. They made a voluntary cut of 25 per cent. On the passage of this Bill. Kimberley can still in law demand a 100 per cent quota of water, which they are en tiled to in terms of the 1934 Act.

We are just trying to prevent wastage.

Yes. That certainly settles one of the questions that was worrying me. I do not know at this stage whether there were any replies, but I have heard that there was a deputation that waited on the hon. the Minister in connection with this Bill. They came from either Kimberley or the users of water under permit, who are dealt with in the 1934 Act, to which we are referring. I do not know whether there was such a deputation, whether they came down and saw the Minister, what case they wanted to put up or how, in fact, if indeed there was a deputation, their case was dealt with and they were satisfied or not, whatever the case may be. But if there was a deputation, and if they came down and put a case, because they felt that their interests were prejudiced, I take it that the hon. the Minister was able to give them precisely the same assurance he has given the House this afternoon and they would have been only too pleased to put their hats on and go home again, perfectly satisfied. They would have had nothing more to worry about. And I hope, perhaps, that the Minister, if he would care to do so—1 do not know how far we can impose on his good nature in this matter—would inform us as to whether any further difficulty has arisen in regard to those owners who are not the municipality, because we know that there are these other people who are interested in the position.

Those were really the points which we wanted to raise at this stage. I would like to deal for a moment with the non-riparian owners. I said I thought it was section 6. That is quite right. Section 6 of Act No. 38 of 1934 says—

There are slight amendments here, but that is what it means—

He can do that for use when the water is available. Those people, including the South African Railways and Harbours Administration, do not seem to have had the specially protected position of the municipality. The hon. member for Kimberley who no doubt is very interested in this matter, is here himself. I wonder whether I could not ask the hon. member also to take part in this debate.

An HON. MEMBER. Both of them.

There are two members for Kimberley. Perhaps they can take part in the debate. What I am particularly anxious about is in view of all the importance that we attach to this question of water supply and the willingness of the hon. the Minister to deal with the Bill in this way, that we should take the first advantage of our parliamentary procedure to have a thorough debate, so that nobody outside can complain hereafter and say: “Well, this or that was not dealt with” and their rights have been over-riden, or something of that sort. As long as there is a feeling that there were certain entrenched rights, as they were called—I do not use that word. I use the word “protected”; they were protected in a special law—as long as that was the position, I think that this opportunity for debate is giving us a chance now to clear the whole matter up once and for all. If there are further details we want to discuss later, we will deal with them in the Committee Stage. For the time being, I say that we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill and in the Committee Stage we will raise any further points.

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us realize the seriousness of this legislation, especially after the recent drought, during which we had to watch anxiously how the water level of the Vaal River was dropping enormously. People have become more aware of the seriousness of the situation and from time to time warning notes were sounded at regional development congresses, where experts in this field warned that the time might come when it would no longer be possible to abstract water from the Vaal River. The last drought has brought home to us the seriousness of the position. The previous speaker quite rightly pointed out that all the people of Kimberley as well as those living along the banks of the Vaal River were willing to cut their water consumption voluntarily and as much as they possibly could. Farmers were even willing to refrain from any further planting and sowing, because they realized that by doing so, by placing restrictions upon themselves, they were rendering a service to the country and to a large entity.

Now we have this legislation before us and we are being shown a new way in which water may possibly be brought to Kimberley. The old method was for the water to be conveyed along the river bed. We know that an enormous amount of evaporation takes place, which often causes large pools of water to dry up; when the river is in flood again those pools have to be filled first before the water can flow further on its way to where the weir for Kimberley is situated. All of us realize that is an enormous waste, as the Department sees it. Consequently, we do not regard it as unreasonable that a new method is being sought of making water available to Kimberley, for example, by means of a pipeline or canal, which will ensure that less water will be wasted. At first people were somewhat concerned that this would cut Kimberley’s water consumption considerably and that it might retard the development of that growing city. I have obtained figures in regard to the increase in Kimberley’s water consumption. In 1920 the water consumption was 162 million gallons, but in 1966 it was 1,971 million gallons. We must also bear in mind the fact that that was during a period of drought when the inhabitants of Kimberley self-imposed many restrictions. When one visits Kimberley and sees the large-scale developments which are taking place there and when one hears about further developments for which we are striving and pleading, we are caused a certain amount of anxiety deep down by the question whether this new method of supplying water might not have a retarding effect on Kimberley or might not implicate its existing rights, those entrenched rights referred to by the hon. member for South Coast.

Some mention was made here of a deputation which had come to see the Minister, but as the representative of Kimberley (South)— and I think the hon. member for Kimberley (North) will do so as well—may testify that we have not received any request from any public body to head any deputation to the Minister or to ask the Minister to see any such deputation. There was nothing of that kind. The only thing about which we were concerned, was the question whether Kimberley’s water consumption might not perhaps be restricted. The Minister has given us the assurance that the position will remain unchanged and that the entrenched rights will continue to be upheld. It will only mean that less water will be wasted, which is, in fact, a more effective guarantee to us that we will get the water we should have, and the State will bear the costs of the construction of a pipeline or canal.

I should just like the Minister to reply to the following. He has referred to the particular canal leading from the Vaalharts weir in the vicinity of Barkly West and which flows through those areas. Now, the question has occurred to me—and the Minister will probably be able to put our minds at ease in this regard—that that canal has a limited capacity only, and when one considers Kimberley’s development and the increase in the local water consumption, the question arises whether that canal will be able to carry the necessary water. I assume that the Minister will be able to put our minds at ease so that we, as representatives of Kimberley, may go back and give the local public bodies the assurance that the Minister will see to it that the capacity of the medium through which water will be supplied will be adequate for providing this quantity of water. Consequently, as far as Kimberley is concerned and as long as we have the guarantee the Minister gave us in this House to-day, I do not think there will be any objection. We are reasonable people who want to leave this matter in the hands of the Minister.

But now there is a second matter, and that concerns the installation of meters along the Vaal River. There are farmers who pump water from the Vaal River. When farmers come along in times of drought, as they have done, and say: “We are prepared to see our harvests wither away and we shall stop planting and sowing if we can thereby do our country a service,” they are obviously approving of the principle of controlling water. And if the Minister decides that it should be done by means of water meters and he makes it possible for them to be installed without causing people any hardship, I want to say that farmers may have many misgivings as to whether such meters will function properly, or whether some flaw or other may not arise in that regard, whether a meter is an expensive item, and so forth, but the important aspect we want to stress is that we want to point out to the Minister that we know that he also wants the farmers to be in a position to continue producing. If the country needs that production he will definitely not impose unnecessary restrictions on those farmers. The Minister may ask us what we suggest should be done to make it possible for him to allow the farmers to continue pumping water and to use more water. I should like to stress this particular aspect and to point out to the Minister that during the past 20 years that I have known the Vaal River, whether in times of drought or not, there was not one single year in which the Vaal River did not come down in a heavy flood, even during the last drought. On such occasions one feels concerned at this enormous amount of water flowing into the sea while the farmers could have used it. A number of years ago a leading engineering firm carried out a survey opposite Barkly West and they pointed out that if a weir 10 ft. high was built across the river, something which they estimated would have cost R18,000 at that time it would have caused the water to dam up for approximately 16 miles upstream. We say that at Barkly West and vicinity there are ideal sites where such weirs can be built. At Mosesberg and other places there are sites where a weir of about 300 ft. high can be built, if necessary, and the water will be restricted to the river instead of being spread over a wide area with all the resultant problems of evaporation. Years ago a survey was carried out in the Harts River for the purpose of building an earthdam, which would have made it possible to store an enormous amount of water. We know the Harts River does not come down in flood as the Vaal River does, but we also know that it is possible for water to be conveyed to that dam by means of the Vaalharts canal in order to fill that dam when we have an abundance of water. We are of the opinion that if weirs are built in the Vaal River it will be possible to store enough water in times of abundance to permit the farmers to undertake the necessary developments. We want to strengthen the hands of the Minister to conserve water and to exercise proper control over water, but we also want to plead that the Minister should think along the same lines as we do and that he should not build large dams everywhere, but should build smaller works, which will prove to be an absolute salvation to those farmers.

I have listened with interest to what the hon. member for Kimberley (South) had to say about this matter. I must confess to not having the personal knowledge of the Vaal River that it is obvious the hon. member has. I think this House is indebted to the hon. member for what he has told us about the vagaries of this river, and I am sure the Minister will take cognizance of what he says.

The hon. member referred to a deputation which, it has been suggested, came to see the hon. the Minister.

No deputation came to see me.

That is correct, but I think I must just correct a false impression which has been created in the House. I do this at the instance of the hon. member for Karoo who, as you know, Sir. is still under medical orders and is not allowed to speak in the House. He advises me that no deputation came down, but that he personally wrote to the Kimberley Municipality in this connection and as the result of his communication with them, they took legal advice, and as the result of that certain newspaper reports were published. I want to refer later to these newspaper reports but before doing so I want to reverse the procedure and deal with clause 2 of the Bill before the House. Sir, I must support what the hon. member for Kimberley (South) has said and I want to pose a direct question to the hon. the Minister in this regard and that is this: Once this water is metered is there a possibility of any charge being levied for it? We know that they are rated and that charges are collected in that way but I have been asked expressly to put this question. Another question which I have been asked expressly to put to the Minister is whether the weir at Kimberley will be left where it is or whether it will be removed once an alternative method of getting the water to Kimberley is arranged for. In this connection I want to say that we were very glad to hear from the hon. the Minister that the cost of the establishment of pipe lines or canals will be borne by the Government. I want also to say that I am extremely glad to get the assurance from the hon. the Minister that Kimberley will still receive its full allocation of water. However, this does pose a problem. What is its allocation? Is there a limit to the amount of water which it may extract? Sir, I think the answer to this question is “no”. I do not believe that the Kimberley municipality is limited in any respect in the amount of water which it can extract; in terms of Act 38 of 1934 it may extract as much water as it requires. In fact, the Act uses that particular phrase: “… And the said owners are entitled to abstract from the Vaal River and which is required by the municipality and the said owners …” Sir, I have here a copy of the Diamond Fields Advertiser of Saturday, 8th April, under the heading: “Water Rights: City takes Legal Advice,” and I want to bring this to the attention of the hon. the Minister—

It is the latter Bill which is now before the House. Then it goes on—

Sir, this is what I am trying to obviate this afternoon, this suggested battle between the Kimberley municipality and the Department, and it is for that reason that I am extremely glad to hear from the hon. the Minister this afternoon that Kimberley will be restricted in no way in the amount of water which it may extract from the Vaal River, always, of course, subject to the proviso that this supply of water is available. Kimberley, up to now, has been able to develop and expand without any restrictions as far as the availability of water is concerned. The canal or pipeline, or whatever other means the hon. the Minister anticipates using to provide this water, is going to be a restrictive factor unless a forward-looking approach is taken in this matter. I think we must accept that it is going to be a very big channel or pipeline which will carry the amount of water which can be carried down the bed of the Vaal River.

Sir, to get back to this argument raised by the Town Clerk of Kimberley, subsection (3) of section 11 of Act 38 of 1934 entrenched the rights of the Kimberley Municipality and also of riparian and other owners to receive the quantity of water “which the said municipality and the said owners are entitled to abstract from the Vaal River and which is required by the said municipality and the said owners”. To enable this to take place, two provisos were added. In terms of the first one the Minister was compelled to maintain the level of the dam created by the weir at Kimberley at a level of one foot below the level of the weir. In terms of the second proviso it was laid down that in the event of there being insufficient water to maintain the dam at a level, the water diverted to the Vaalharts Irrigation scheme was to be restricted so as to allow sufficient water into the dam at Kimberley. Sir, this is why I say that Kimberley is not limited in any way; it has no allocation in terms of section 6. In terms of the Act as it stands to-day it has virtually a guaranteed unlimited water supply within the limits of the availability of water in the Vaal River. As I have said, we have accepted the Minister’s statement and we sincerely hope that Kimberley is not going to be prejudiced in any way in what they rightly consider to be their entrenched rights. They had the foresight in the middle of the last century to make this provision for water and to-day they are afraid that they are going to lose their rights. We sincerely hope that these canals are not going to be a restricting factor in the future development of Kimberley.

Dealing with riparian and other users, it is obvious from section 11 (3) of the Act that these users of water have obtained their water from the bed of the river, from the river channel. Once this water is put into an artificial channel or into a pipeline, are they still going to have access to it? Some people have read into section 11—and here I seek guidance from the hon. the Minister and his Department—that their rights are also entrenched. This Bill lays down that the first and second provisos, which stipulated that water shall be released down the Vaal River, shall not apply if the hon. the Minister decides to supply water to Kimberley by channel. Where will these other water users referred to in section 11 get their water from? As the hon. member for South Coast has said, we support this measure at Second Reading, but we would like answers to these questions and we would like a further discussion which will help perhaps to allay the fears of the Kimberley Municipality.

Last year during the discussion of the Water Affairs Vote I made a plea in this House for control to be exercised over our water and water resources. That was at a time when we were experiencing a terrible shortage of water and I think that the necessity of control was realized on all sides. We came to realize that it was high time for control to be exercised over water. At this stage I want to admit frankly that I welcome this legislation, as I think all people do who have any interest in the matter. The principle embodied in this legislation probably meets with everyone’s approval, Sir, because last year we found that where there was no control there tended to be chaos. That even gave rise to one person trying to benefit himself at the expense of another. But perhaps there is still cause for some concern as far as the exercising of this control is concerned. I have some misgivings I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. These misgivings are not of a theoretical nature. In my case they are based on my intimate knowledge of that area as well as on the practical experience I have gained there as a farmer who irrigates his land.

It is not the intention of any Act to favour some and not others, and consequently we have to accept that all who live in that area and draw water from the river will be treated alike. In the application of such legislation it is difficult to make distinctions. I repeat that at this stage I find it very difficult to foresee that we shall be able to apply the Act in a uniform fashion, and I say this on the basis of my knowledge of conditions in that area. I want to explain this as follows. If a new settlement is established it is possible to plan that settlement on a uniform basis; it is possible to arrange everything in such a way so as to have no hitches in the application of this legislation. In this case, however, we are concerned with a large variety of let us call them “projects”, ones which have been in use for many years on the various farms situated in that entire area which covers a long distance. There are people in that area who pump water; some use extremely large pumps whereas others use smaller pumps. There are even cases of people who use the bucket-pump and the water-wheel. There is a large number of people who have the privilege of drawing water from canals. To my mind the installation of meters in these different cases is going to create problems, in some cases virtually insurmountable problems. I just want to mention that if one pumps water with a motor one forces such water through one’s meter. I do not know how the person who does not obtain his water in this way is going to manage. Water has to be forced through a meter otherwise that meter is merely going to be something which obstructs the flow of the water. I now want to plead very strongly with the hon. the Minister to keep a back door open for himself in whatever way he is able to do so. This will allow of provision being made to eliminate the possibility of people suffering losses if and when practical problems are experienced in the application of this Act.

In the first place this Act contemplates control, but this control also means restriction. In this regard too I do not feel quite at ease because I realize full well that in a large part of that area—I am referring to the lowest part of the lower Vaal River in particular— we have had the phenomenon for a long time that people cannot make a complete success of their undertakings because they are exclusively dependent on irrigation and have uneconomic units. If the supply of water for those people were to be restricted in any way in the application of this Act, I foresee major problems.

Tell me, what danger do you foresee for them in this Bill we are now considering?

The danger I foresee is that those people may not receive that quantity of water once these meters have been installed. They will not receive that quantity of water.

Do you mean that in the meantime they have been receiving more water than they have been entitled to?

I will not say more than they have been entitled to. It all depends, however, on the way in which they draw their water. Before making this statement I made it very clear that a meter would merely be an obstacle in the way of water which ran through a sluice from a canal which did not flow strongly. Consequently those people will

not get their flow. Therefore I want to bring it to the Minister’s attention that we are going to experience practical problems in this regard. The full quota of those people must not be affected; otherwise we are going to experience major problems.

I am thinking of something else, a matter to which the hon. member for Kimberley (South) has already referred, and that is the flood water which flows down the Vaal River every year and which in point of fact does not serve any further purpose once it has flowed past that area. I just want to say that since January this year up to the present time the lower Vaal River has been in flood for three-quarters of this period. If these people were to be restricted by meters, such water would flow past them without being used, water which could have been put to good use otherwise. I want to plead for a concession to be made so as to allow those people to use water freely without being kept in check by meters and other restrictions when the river actually is in flood. I am aware of the fact that a considerable degree of concern as regards the future exists in that lower region which is situated directly above the confluence with the Orange and which falls within my constituency. The people are concerned because they do not know what they are going to get. Consequently I want to address a friendly request to the hon. the Minister to state in this House, provided that that is not going to place him in an embarrassing position, how, where and for what purpose the water of the Oppermansdrift Dam is going to be used. The fear has been expressed in that area that new settlements may be established. Others hope that this dam is going to serve precisely the lower Vaal River area. In order to have certainty in regard to what the position will be, I shall be very grateful if the hon. the Minister will make a statement in regard to the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer in passing to the two hon. members on the opposite side who also took part in this debate. The hon. member for South Coast expressed the fear that Kimberley’s indisputable right may be affected by this. Immediately after him the second speaker on that side, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, got up and said that he had no fears that Kimberley’s rights would be affected. I am not surprised that there is some confusion between the two gentlemen, because I am sure that Kimberley did not ask them to speak on this matter. I am convinced that if the Town Council of Kimberley had anything to say about this water question they would have made use of their two representatives in this House. But they did not. [Interjections.] The laugh which hon. members have just heard is that of a man who is whistling in the dark. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. He showed his ignorance by speaking in this House on matters he knows nothing about. In terms of the Act of 1934 Kimberley is entitled to a certain quantity of water. It will retain that right. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) has already pointed out that Kimberley uses five times as much water to-day as they were entitled to by agreement under the Act of 1934. I will concede that this Bill affects certain rights, but I want to say at once that no rights are being taken away. Kimberley will at all times receive all the water it needs. During the recent drought the Minister did not hesitate to impose water restrictions at Vaalharts in order to supply some towns with water. The Minister is a practical man and he will see to it that Kimberley gets the water that it needs. The hon. member need therefore have no fears that Kimberley will not get its fair share of the water. But Kimberley is expanding enormously, and therefore I also want to appeal to the Minister to see to it that that canal is large enough to be able to supply all future needs.

Now you are agreeing with me.

No. The hon. member is agreeing with me. He spoke about matters he knows nothing about. He said, for example, that he feared that the rights of riparians would be affected. He said that if the water were canalized the farmers would not have the right to visit the water supply. Surely it is absurd for him to say something like that. No canals are being provided for that water. It only shows again that in his ignorance he dished up a story here while he knows nothing about the true state of affairs. Those people pump water from the river and in that respect no restrictions will be imposed upon them as far as visiting the pumps and the river is concerned.

I should like to say a word about clause 2 of the Bill. I am not saying that the rights of farmers which are being affected here are not indisputable rights, but the irrigation works of farmers along the river have expanded to such an extent in the past number of years that they have virtually doubled. This expansion was possible only because control was exercised over the water. Before the Vaal Dam and the weir at Vaalharts had been built, the water flowed past within the space of a few days and the farmers there had no water left for irrigation purposes in times of drought. But since the Vaal Dam was built and a weir was erected at Vaalharts this water has flowed so regularly that the farmers have been able to expand their irrigation. But because the farmers in the upper regions have been pumping out all the water from below the control points, with the result that the farmers along the lower reaches could not get any water, the Minister has introduced this Bill to control the water so that everyone may get his fair share of it. I have no objection to that, of course, but I foresee difficulties in connection with the control by means of meters. I am not saying that that is a wrong method, but what I do say is that it still has to be proved whether it is the right one. I do not agree with the hon. member for De Aar that meters do not always let through the right quantity of water. But we leave it at that. We are not going to meet trouble half-way, but we shall wait until difficulties crop up. Then we shall see what must be done about them. The regulations to be promulgated by the Minister will determine what quantity of water each person is to get and when the meters are to be inspected. The owner will now have to have the meter installed and if he is unable to do so, the State will do so, but at his expense. The State reserves to itself the right to send round inspectors to inspect the meters. A penalty is being prescribed in respect of meters which are out of order. I am slightly concerned about that. On whom will the onus rest? Will the owners of meters which are out of order simply be prosecuted indiscriminately? In this regard I think the inspectors should exercise some discretion and see to it that persons do not get into trouble unnecessarily. I also feel that the quantity of water to which a person is entitled should not be determined on a daily basis, nor on a weekly basis, but on a monthly basis. Most people pump with electrical units and it can happen that there is a power failure lasting for a few days, or the pump may be out of order for a few days. If the quantity of water to which a person is entitled is determined on a weekly or daily basis, that person will therefore lose water. That is why I am asking that the quotas should be determined on a monthly basis. That would enable the owner, if he was unable to pump for a few days, to pump out the necesary quantity of water later and in so doing to save his crops.

The two matters to which the Minister should therefore pay attention are, firstly, the water quota, which should be determined on a monthly basis, and secondly, monthly inspection and reading of the meters. The provisions in this regard should not be applied too strictly. Inspectors should be able to exercise their discretion so that persons will not get into trouble unnecessarily. Subject to these two considerations I agree with the proposed restrictions.

The hon. member for South Coast has asked whether there is any connection between this Bill and the Bill which is at present before a Select Committee. There is no connection whatsoever between the two. The Bill which is before the Select Committee is a more far-reaching Bill than this one. However, we cannot say anything more about it, but shall have to wait and see what recommendations the Select Committee come forward with. The Bill which we are discussing now is very short—in fact, it is so short that it really does not appear to be worth the trouble of introducing it, but it is nevertheless necessary. It deals simply and solely with the way in which water is being supplied to Kimberley (clause 1). It deals exclusively therefore with the regulation of water for Kimberley. Just consider this: To release a thousand cusecs three times a year and to let it flow through just for washing-out purposes, because it has to be washed out, then the Kimberley dam would be empty. That is a tremendous wastage. In clause 1 of the Bill we envisage the prevention of this wastage. But it does not affect Kimber’ey itself in any way at all. If Kimberley is going to expand so tremendously in future, as the hon. member for Kimberley (South) believes, and it should need more water, then we shall merely have to enlarge the canal, because surely it is obvious that Kimberley must have water.

The hon. member for Kimberley (South) also expressed a fear in regard to the meters. A similar attitude was adopted by the hon. member for Kimberley (North) and by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) The meters are there merely to exercise control so that a person cannot pump more water than he is entitled to. I must say that the hon. member for Kimberley (North) raised a valid point, even though he was a little at logger-heads with me. He asked when the meters would be read. I will admit that if those meters are to be read every day, or every second day, and something were to go wrong with a person’s pumping equipment, then it would of course mean that he cannot pump water on that day. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we will consider this aspect very carefully when the regulations are drawn up. We will see to it that readings are made so regularly that a farmer will not be in any danger of losing water to which he is entitled.

† The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) asked me whether these farmers would be charged for the water pumped. They cannot be charged. They are entitled to this water and they cannot be charged. They are only entitled to pump from the normal flow. They cannot be charged for that.

*The hon. member for De Aar expressed his misgivings in regard to the meter system. He said that I should keep a back door open for myself in case a problem in regard to the water meters arose. I do have a back door. It is the back door of all legislation. If it does not work, we change the Act.

The hon. the Minister misunderstood me. What I meant was that if those meters do not supply an adequate quantity of water there must be a way out.

Yes, precisely. As far as I know there is only one way of measuring water and that is to determine how much passes through a meter. The hon. member expressed the fear that the consumer obtaining his water from a canal would not be able to measure his water. Experts say it is easy. If it does not work, we shall simply have to change it later on. I want to give the assurance that this legislation has not been drawn up to land farmers in difficulties. It has been drawn up to provide as many farmers as possible with their fair share of water. The hon. member for De Aar also asked whether, when a river is in flood, we could not allow the farmers to pump more water. That is a very fair question. I have now laid down a policy that when a river is in flood to its mouth, i.e. right up to where it enters the sea. the farmers must be allowed, even where there are canals, to fill their private dams from those canals. Why not? The water is flowing past down to the sea. Let us then as practical people allow them to fill their dams from the canals. They are farmers who are entitled to do so. Then they will have so much more water in future. I shall also go into this matter to find out whether this is practical where water is being pumped. But I do not know, but I shall go into the matter. To me it appears to be a ridiculous wastage to allow water to flow down to the sea if there is an opportunity to pump the water out and to fill the dams with that water. They can do that, provided the water which is already in flood has reached its mouth, so that nobody suffers any shortage as a result. We must try in a practical way to store water. I just want to repeat that this Bill can in no way restrict the water of Kimberley because it states very emphatically that we merely want to allocate the water to which Kimberley is entitled at the moment, according to statutory agreement, in another and more sparing way.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. the Minister to tell us something in regard to the Oppermansdrift Dam. Probably he has just forgotten.

No new settlements will be allowed below the Oppermansdrift Dam. The Oppermansdrift Dam is being built to supplement the Vaal Dam, and for that reason alone.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to be my unenviable task this year to have to present to this House several measures concerned in some way or other with the morals of our people. One does not want to be a spoil-sport but one does have a responsibility towards the community which one cannot nor wants to shirk. Hon. members will understand, therefore, if I say that I do not take any pleasure in debating subjects of this nature every time, but that I shall, on the other hand, be neglecting my duty if I did not take those measures which time and circumstances require me to take in the interests of good morals.

Fortunately the Bill we have before us is short and quite simple and ought therefore not to call forth much discussion, even though immorality is apparently a never-failing topic to some people. As you have probably noticed already, the sting of this Bill is contained in clauses 3, 4 and 5. Accordingly I shall concentrate mainly on the provisions contained in those clauses. However, in passing I just want to deal briefly with clause 1. Hon. members have undoubtedly noticed already that in that clause we are trying to follow, as closely as possible, the definition of “white person”, as contained in the Population Registration Act. Therefore we are not turning loose a new bogey in the Immorality Act, but rather an old familiar one that ought not to cause anybody nightmares. However, for the information of hon. members I may just mention that it is our policy also to follow, as far as is practicable, the definitions of race as contained in the Population Registration Act, in other legislation where such definitions are required. However, you will realize that for the purposes of the Immorality Act it is only necessary to distinguish between White and non-White, and that we are therefore deviating from the pattern of the Population Registration Act in that respect.

What I want to emphasize, however, is that we are not standing at the cradle of a new sort of white person in clause 1, but that we are in fact merely being consistent and putting into practice what we preached in the Population Registration Act in 1962. I do not consider it necessary, therefore, to conduct a protracted debate on this matter once again, and I trust that in this debate we shall not experience again all the old birth-pangs which some of us suffered in labour in 1962. The attitude we adopt on this side of the House is simply that we merely want to perpetuate a principle, which has already been accepted by Parliament, by carrying it into effect, and that there is no point in fighting past battles over again.

Sir, hon. members will probably want to know more about clause 3, and by this time they will possibly have spotted within the framework of that provision the call-girl and the other intermediary between the prostitute and her client. As you probably know, the votaries of those arts entered this field of immorality in earnest after the streets had become too hot for prostitutes and it was discovered that the age-old profession could be advertised and practised just as lucratively in a much more sophisticated way. Frequently their activities are so artfully concealed under the cloak of friendship clubs and other organizations, that they do not arouse any suspicion whatever amongst the uninitiated. It is likely that those of you who know Johannesburg, may also know that it is not at all uncommon for a man to find under the windscreen-wiper of his car a handbill with an invitation to dial some telephone number or other, should he feel lonely or merely be seeking company for the evening. If he avails himself of that invitation, he receives directions which will soon bring him to a place where he may, upon payment of a certain amount of money, select for himself a female companion for the evening from a number of photographs. Once he has made his choice, a code name and a telephone number are supplied to him and he is informed that he himself should make an appointment with her, and in that way he eventually arrives at the place where the prostitute practises her profession. I suppose I need not tell you what follows after that.

During this entire process there was possibly no direct or demonstrable suggestion of immorality, and definitely no persuasion by the prostitute or her client. Everything took place under the finely embroidered cloak of friendship or innocent social intercourse, and the deft way in which the law relating to procuration was circumvented, may be likened to a luxury liner sailing gracefully through the Suez Canal.

The activities of call-girls and other intermediaries do, of course, take place in other ways as well, but I do not want to tire the hon. House with an account of all the methods which are being used to take a horse to water. I may perhaps just mention that it is not unknown that certain people who are apparently providing the public with certain transport services, have a lively share in this sort of trade, but do, of course, use other methods to achieve their aim.

I know that the provisions contained in clause 3 appear to be drastic at the first glance, but hon. members should have no fears; it is not a trap. If you look closely, you will notice that the acts which constitute punishable offences in that clause, are only punishable if they are performed with intent that any female may be unlawfully carnally known by any male. It does not mean, therefore, that all of us should from now on live in fear and trembling that any act which we perform and which may enable a man to meet any female, will constitute a punishable offence.

However, hon. members may ask why the intent to have unlawful carnal intercourse is not being restricted to a particular female, and I shall tell you why such a curtailment of the provisions will not suit me. If I did that, the provisions I am contemplating at the moment might quite easily be circumvented by simply referring the client to more than one woman at a time. For instance, it is known that it happens sometimes that several prostitutes gather in one place and that they have standing arrangements with certain persons, who are often connected with members of the public, to provide them with clients. Such a client is simply brought to the place in question and there he is left to himself to make his own arrangements for his amusement.

Viewed in the right light, the provisions of clause 3 are not unreasonable. In addition I want to announce here and now and give you the assurance that it is not our intention to start a witch-hunt or to drag people to the courts for trivialities. On the contrary. I want to go further by saying that it is my intention to implement the provisions of this clause with the necessary circumspection, and, so as to prove my bona fides in this regard, I intend to propose during the Committee Stage that a prosecution in terms of the provisions concerned may only be instituted on the personal authority of the Attorney-General. I have already given such notice.

Unfortunately it is true that homosexuality, amongst men as well as women, is also known here. These are evils which are as old as mankind itself and which were classified by our Roman-Dutch authors as unnatural offences. However, at present there is still uncertainty as to whether Lesbianism, which is nothing but homosexuality amongst women, is still an offence here, in spite of the fact that St. Matthew described voluptuousness amongst women as an unnatural offence. However, this offence has possibly been abrogated by disuse here, and so far we have not been successful in tracing a case in which a woman in this country was charged with such an abuse.

Whatever the position is, the phenomenon of homosexuality—both amongst our men and amongst our women—is, I regret to say, a matter which causes concern here. It is known that former glorious civilizations in which homosexuality was rampant and was in some cases even exalted to the point of being something noble, no longer exist to-day. Just think of ancient Rome, where this human weakness degenerated into lechery and disgusting revelry. Nor should we forget Sparta, where it was even exalted to the stature of a cherished ideal, particularly for the Spartan military forces. And who can deny that this was also the canker that afflicted the biblical Sodom? Was it not in Sodom where a group of licentious men knocked up Lot one night, demanding that he should hand over to them the men who were passing the night at his home so that they might know those men?

No, Sir, history has given us a clear warning and we should not allow ourselves to be deceived into thinking that we may casually dispose of this viper in our midst by regarding it as innocent fun. It is a proven fact that sooner or later homosexual instincts make their effects felt on a community if they are permitted to run riot. It is and remains a real danger to young children who are seduced into committing this repulsive misdeed by older men and women, and experts incline to the view that, if a youth has walked upon this slithery road long enough, he soon reaches the point of no return. Therefore we should be on the alert and do what there is to do lest we be saddled later with a problem which will be the utter ruin of our spiritual and moral fibre.

As you will notice. I have already tried to take the field in clause 4 and to tell you the truth, I have in addition given serious consideration to drafting legislation whereby this evil may be tackled in earnest. However, it is not so easy to decide what measures should be taken in this regard, particularly since experts in the field in question are not always agreed as to what remedy should be used for curing this evil. The governments of the world have also gone from one extreme to the other in an attempt at exorcizing this thorny problem, but up to now nobody has, to my knowledge, discovered the panacea which may stamp out this malignant growth or even arrest it effectively. One does, of course, not want to go as far as the Danes who, as you probably know, conferred upon their courts the power to direct that those people who persist in enticing children to this road of perdition, should be emasculated. I say that one does not want to go so far, but it is obvious that we must do something sooner or later.

Since I introduced this Bill. I have once again considered this matter carefully so as to obtain clarity in regard to the first steps that ought to be taken in this regard. I came to realize that homosexuality was a problem which had to be approached very sympathetically. But if it is to be approached sympathetically, it should in addition be tackled as deliberately. We dare not connive at it, and we shall be as much in error if we tackled it precipitately. I arrived at the conclusion that coping with this thorny problem was not the task of one person only, and for that reason I decided to entrust this problem next year to the body which I believe to be the obvious body for investigating this problem properly. I have decided to introduce in this House next year a measure which will serve as the basis for inquiry by a select committee, even before the Second Reading, before the principle will have been accepted. I intend to pursue this course, firstly, because I believe that this House is in the first and in the final analysis the institution which has to decide whether or not this evil in our midst should and can be combated by legislation, and, secondly, because a select committee does, to my mind, have the necessary machinery to penetrate to the heart of the matter. In view of the above I am therefore of the Opinion that we should rather not proceed with the provisions of clause 4 at this stage, and I shall ask the Committee in the Committee Stage to vote against this clause.

As hon. members will notice, the presumption contained in clause 5 is calculated to ease the burden of proof which is being placed upon the State in terms of clause 3. You will realize that where an offender is actually the only person to have particular knowledge of a fact, such as the intention with which he committed a deed, it is an almost impossible task to prove that fact by way of other evidence. Viewed from this angle, the provisions of this clause are therefore not unreasonable either. But I know in anticipation that there are some of us who will be so shocked when they read this clause, that in their mind’s eye they are already seeing how the prison doors will be locked behind a person who had, for a quite innocent purpose, enabled another person to trace a woman who also happens to be a prostitute. I want to console those people by pointing out to them that the presumption is a refutable one. Nor do I believe that it will be particularly difficult for the innocent person to refute that presumption. On the contrary, I have my doubts whether the presumption goes far enough, and I shall not be surprised if an hon. member were to suggest that we should phrase it even more strongly. Whatever the case may be, for the present I should rather content myself with these comments.

Mr. Speaker, the other provisions of this Bill may be dealt with profitably in the Committee Stage, but hon. members will possibly welcome it if I mention to them in advance that, after reconsidering the matter, 7 have decided to do away with the provisions relating to a whipping, as contained in clause 6, and that I shall in addition take the necessary steps in that regard during the Committee Stage.

We have listened with great interest and sympathy to the explanation of this Bill given to us by the hon. the Minister. Having heard the Minister we feel that after the Committee Stage there will be very litle left of the controversial aspects of the original Bill that came before us, and that is the spirit in which we approach this Bill. We are all agreed that we want to restrict immorality as much as we can in South Africa, certainly all immorality which still relates to the derivation of the word, which refers to things which are so offensive to the mores or the moral code of the community that they threaten the sound character and the nature of society itself. But we also know—and I am glad to see that the Minister was careful to make this apparent in his speech—that governments and states have to be extremely careful not to intrude unduly on the private lives of their citizens unless society itself is threatened. The great problem that one faces here is at what stage private acts between individuals develop into a danger to the community. It is quite clear that in the Western world at least there are differences of opinion developing, that there are new thoughts developing about this. We have found in some of the countries with whom we have been traditionally associated legislation passed recently to exclude private acts voluntarily committed between individuals in strict privacy from the purview of the criminal law. We in South Africa are more conservative than that; the hon. the Minister made that clear to-day in his statement. I am glad to know that the Minister is aware that his is indeed a problem and that it is difficult to know where to draw the line. The hon. the Minister told us that he has decided to bring this whole matter before Parliament next year and to refer it to a Select Committee before the Second Reading. On behalf of the Opposition, I would like to commend the hon. the Minister on his wisdom in this matter. We can only trust that that Select Committee will act with equal wisdom and responsibility when the time comes. We also have to accept, Sir, that society’s concept of morality is a changeable concept; it is not a law of the Medes and Persians that never changes at all. We have many examples in the development of South African law to show how the concept of morality can change quite dramatically. I can remember from my own limited studies of the law that there was a time, in the days of my own grandfather, when the thought that a man or a woman should marry the spouse of a deceased brother or sister was moral anathema to the people, yet by the time World War II ended, opinions had changed. Our Prime Minister, in giving expression to the changed moral outlook of our community, recently had to go further and bring in legislation to make it possible for a person to marry the divorced spouse of a brother or sister. If my grandfather or grandmother had to be told that that would happen in South African society I think they would have died of apoplexy. To-day we take it for granted. We have to accept that these things are not rigid, that they are not unchangeable. Here is another example. Not very long ago the commission of adultery was a crime; now it has been abrogated by disuse because the moral outlook of our people has changed. That is why I believe that it is wise that we should be circumspect in our approach to these matters. We want a moral society; we want the character and fibre of our South African society to be protected against things which are evil and destructive of our character, but at the same time we want to protect the rights of individuals. We want to be sympathetic where certain acts and certain natural instincts, which deviate from the norm, are not so much a matter for the criminologist as for the psychologist and the psychiatrist. All these are matters which have to be considered and I am sure that they will receive the careful attention of a Select Committee in due course.

Sir, the Bill as it would have been if the Minister had not published and again to-day announced his intention to change it, would, of course, have placed the Opposition in a difficulty. There was, for example, clause 4 but I think I have said enough and the Minister has said enough to indicate that that does not require further discussion. Clause 4 will disappear and the subject matter of it will become the subject for further investigation. We are also very pleased to see that the suggestion in the original Bill that corporal punishment should be inflicted for crimes of this nature is now to be dropped. I want to say at once that that frightened us. We felt that that would be almost a reversion to mediaeval measures. To us it is unthinkable that in combating immorality the State itself should be guilty of practices bordering upon the sadistic.

As the hon. the Minister has anticipated it is the definition clause that will cause us certain problems. Before to-day we had a definition clause in this Bill which was disjunctive; it defined a white person under alternative suggestions. That disjunctive provision now becomes conjunctive. The accused person will not only have to prove that he had carnal intercourse with a person of the other sex who was obviously White, if the person concerned is White, but also that the other person is not generally accepted as belonging to a non-white group in South Africa. I am just wondering, whatever the merits of this definition may be for other purposes, whether it is a wise definition for the purposes of the Immorality Act. It seems unnecessary first of all; and, in so far as it is not unnecessary in practice, it defeats the very wise provision in the original Immorality Act of 1957, in section 16 (3). I think this matter is important enough for me to draw the attention of the House to the actual wording of section 16 (3). It reads—

I think we agree that the vast majority of cases of intercourse between people of different races are casual relations, casual incidents in the lives of the people concerned. Surely, the only reasonable way in which a person can determine the race of such a partner in crime—or potential crime—is by appearance. How else? I do not want to go into details but that is the nature of the situation. If this definition is to be effective, if it is to mean anything in the Act, will the State have to go out of its way to establish that such a second person, who may in the case of a white accused have been obviously White, was not accepted as White or was accepted as a member of another race? Or will the mere physical appearance of that person be satisfactory to prove that the accused had reasonable grounds to believe that? That is the first point. If that is so, if it is going to be reasonable for a man to assume that the appearance of a person is conclusive, why change the definition?

The second question which arises is this. To what extent is this going to put the person concerned into additional jeopardy, into greater jeopardy than he would be in under the old definition? I do not want to go into the merits of the original provisions against immorality between race and race in South Africa. I do not think that I will be permitted to do so. But I think that we will all agree that the social consequences of conviction under that Act are terrible. For the people concerned and for the families concerned the consequences are terrible; they are even greater than was contemplated by Parliament when originally it enacted these measures purely as criminal measures. We do not want people who act in a moment of aberration, in a moment of extreme passion, necessarily to be placed in extra jeopardy when they acted, perhaps, in good faith. I am concerned that if this definition is to mean anything, it may put people in greater jeopardy than before where they acted, as far as they knew, innocently, in a moment of passion, in a moment of mental aberration. Therefore, I think that the Minister should know that in the Committee Stage we of the Opposition will ask him to reconsider this, ask him to investigate it further and will perhaps come with suggestions to remove the doubts we have.

I think that the same applies to the other clause to which the Minister devoted some time, namely clause 3. I think that we are satisfied that clause 3 is directed actually against people who assist organized vice for profit in South Africa, who assist the practice of actual prostitution. That becomes clearer to us if we read clause 3 in conjunction with the shifting of onus in the other clause, namely clause 5, to which the Minister referred. We are grateful to the Minister that he would limit prosecutions under that clause to cases where the Attorney-General himself authorizes prosecution. We think that that is a great step forward. But if it is intended to combat organized vice for profit, if it is intended to combat prostitution, why does the Minister not say so, why not make it clear in the law, because then a great many doubts will be removed. The Minister may have reasons: He smiles very confidently. I wish that he had told us of them when he introduced the Bill; perhaps he still will tell us. If he gives us a satisfactory answer we will let it rest there, but if not, then this, too, is a matter which we may have to take further at the Committee Stage.

From what I have said I think that the House will gather that we of the Opposition are not going to oppose this Bill in view of the undertakings we have had from the Minister and in view of the amendments on the Order Paper. We are not particularly enamoured of certain minor aspects of this Bill. Our attitude to the original Immorality Act is well known: We do not like immorality but we feel that there are certain things in life that cannot be controlled by legislation. However I cannot go into that now. We will let the Second Reading pass but the Minister should know that there are certain aspects which I have mentioned which we should like to discuss with him further during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Opposition and especially the hon. member for Yeoville for the way in which this measure has been received. I felt that hon. members would see it in this way, that the debate on this Bill should actually take place during the Committee Stage. At this stage I can only say that the reason—as I also mentioned in passing during my Second Reading speech—why we are adopting this definition, is simply to bring it into line as far as possible with the definition contained in the Population Registration Amendment Act of 1962. As a matter of fact, in the case of a later Bill which we are going to introduce, the Mixed Marriages Bill, we will have to do exactly the same. I want to concede readily that the new definition will place a somewhat heavier onus on the accused, but by reason of the provisions contained in sections 16 (3) and 21 (2) the onus of proof will very easily be shifted. It will simply amount to this, that a person who is obviously White—only yesterday there was another court decision as to when a person is obviously White—and who is found to live in white circumstances, a person who is not known to live under any but such circumstances, will have nothing to fear. In short that is what it amounts to.

Do we have white streets in South Africa?

No, but it is inside South Africa. I do not think there is anything further that I can add at this stage. Let us leave this matter then until we can debate it further during the Committee Stage.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Bill we are now dealing with is short and mainly self-explanatory. It relates to a matter on the principle of which we have long reached agreement. In fact, I believe that there is no dispute between hon. members on the opposite side and myself on the question of whether we are in favour of or against mixed marriages, and I say that on the authority of no less a person than the late Leader of the hon. members on that side of the House, i.e. the late General Smuts. I shall appreciate it if I could enjoy the attention of the hon. member for Yeoville. According to Hansard, volume 68, column 6175, he said the following—

It is in fact not my intention, with this measure, to change or revaluate the principle on which we are all in such heart-felt agreement, nor do I believe it is necessary for me to-day to cover the old ground once again which gave rise to the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. For that reason I trust that we shall to-day confine ourselves to what is appropriate to this measure, and that we shall refrain from raking up old sores, saddling the hackneyed old horse, or even from anticipating the same old troubles all over again. In passing I may perhaps just mention for the sake of interest that even the outside world does not hesitate to seize on the fruits of our policy of separate development when it suits it. Hon. members may perhaps not all be aware of the fact that this very Act, which we seek to amend to-day, has been resorted to by a citizen of the United Kingdom in order to get rid of a troublesome and untenable marriage. Here I have in mind the case of a young English school-teacher who, after she had paid a visit to Ethiopia, met a South African Zulu in Australia and got married to him in a trice, only to discover about a month afterwards, to her alarm, that she had made a mistake and had ventured into the wrong kind of marriage. She left him summarily and returned to England. To rid herself of the fetters she had chosen for herself, she then resorted to our Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and applied to our courts to declare her marriage null and void on the grounds that it had been contracted in conflict with the provisions of that Act. I repeat, it is pleasing to know that we sometimes pass legislation in this country which can be useful to foreigners as well.

To return more specifically to the Bill, hon. members will notice that there are mainly two aspects of the Bill which need amplification, and those are the ones contained in clauses 1 (b) and 2. The other provisions of the Bill are actually bound up with those in clause 2 and can, if necessary, rather be discussed at the Committee Stage. Perhaps I should just point out in passing, however, that the provisions of paragraph (a) of the proviso to section 1 (1) have now become unserviceable as a result of the race definitions proposed in clause 2, and must therefore be repealed. You will notice, however, that in clause 1 (a) it was endeavoured to retain the spirit of those provisions as far as practicable. The good faith of the marriage officer and of the parties may therefore still, as previously, save a marriage which would otherwise have been invalid, from the stake. It appears to me fair and just that it should be so, and I believe the proposed proviso will not place unsurmountable obstacles in the way of a party who acted in good faith at all times.

As for clause 1 (b), it will be noted that apart from substituting the word “Union” by the word “Republic” we are extending the provisions of the existing section 1 (2) to all South African male citizens. As hon. members know, one may change one’s domicile without surrendering one’s citizenship, and a mixed marriage entered into by a South African female citizen abroad is not invalid: Provided, of course, that her husband is not domiciled in the Republic. If a man domiciled in the Republic, for example, gave up his domicile here with the exclusive object of entering into a mixed marriage abroad, the marriage would probably be invalid in the Republic because he had acted in fraudem legis. In such a case supplementary legislation would therefore not be necessary to prevent circumvention of the Act.

It may happen, however, that a South African male citizen surrenders his domicile quite bona fide, but retains his citizenship and subsequently enters into a mixed marriage abroad with a South African female citizen of another race. If they are both South African citizens by birth or descent the fact that they are not domiciled in the Republic will not prevent them from returning to the Republic, nor will their marriage be invalid. The position would then arise that a marriage which is essentially the same as a marriage which is invalid in the Republic, would have to be recognized, and that some South African citizens would be able to enter into legal mixed marriages whereas others could not do so. Such a situation cannot be allowed to develop, and consequently timeous measures are now taken in this regard.

As regards a South African female citizen who enters into a mixed marriage with a foreigner who is not domiciled in the Republic, it may be mentioned that her husband will of course have no right of admission to the Republic because he is not a South African citizen. Because in our law the wife follows the domicile of the husband, such marriages will be all the less likely to present us with problems.

Hon. members will notice that race definitions are now introduced in the relevant Act for the first time. As you know, there are race definitions in the Immorality Act, 1957. Now hon. members will understand that one cannot allow people who are prohibited from committing immorality with one another to enter into marriage with one another, and vice versa. It is therefore essential that persons who for the purposes of the Immorality Act are regarded as “Whites” or “non-Whites” should also be regarded as such for the purposes of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. When the latter Act was passed, the then Immorality Act, No. 5 of 1927, contained no race definitions and it was not practicable to define races for the purposes of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. When the Immorality Act, 1957, was passed, however, the position changed, and it is necessary that it should be set right as far as the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act is concerned.

In the meanwhile it has also been decided to bring the race definitions in the Immorality Act as far as practicable into line with those in the Population Registration Act, 1950, as far as possible, in this regard, and to prevent anomalies and hardship. This decision is to be put into effect during this year. The race definitions contained in clause 2 follow the same pattern.

The definition of “white” contained in the Population Registration Act is already policy, and if we want to be consistent, we should also follow it in this case. I do not want to cover the ground we covered in the past with regard to that definition all over again, and I trust that in this connection I shall be able to rely on the support of hon. members. As hon. members will notice, however, the definition of “white” in clause 2 does not contain the term “Coloured”, as in the case of the corresponding definition in the Population Registration Act. This is done because for the purposes of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act we find it adequate to distinguish only between Whites and non-Whites, and not between Whites, Coloureds and Bantu as in the case of the Population Registration Act.

I also want to caution hon. members not to make the mistake, as has happened on occasions, to think that Whites and non-Whites who enter into marriage despite the Act are committing an offence. That is not so, provided, of course, that they do not make false statements or commit fraud.

For the information of the hon. House 1 may also mention that on occasions the courts have attacked and commented on the lack of race definitions in the Act. Through the measure before the House we shall therefore also facilitate their task and bring about greater stability in our race pattern.

Under all these circumstances I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the measure will be well received by everybody, and I move.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, is a lawyer’s Bill, even more so perhaps than the previous Bill with which we dealt. As such it is a Bill which should be dealt with properly in the Committee Stage. I may say that there are certain aspects of this Bill which we will probe in the Committee Stage and at this stage, we shall give the hon. the Minister some indication as to the difficulties we experience with some of these clauses and as to the sort of clarification that we will ask for at the appropriate time. As far as the definition is concerned, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, it brings it into line with the definition in the Population Registration Act. It is always a good thing to have the same definition in relation to the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages legislation and the population laws. As the hon. the Minister is aware, in the past there have been many difficulties relating to these matters where persons in terms of the Mixed Marriages Act, as it now exists, were able to get married as white persons under a different definition. The result was that for example one was classified as a Coloured person under the Population Registration Act but they were allowed to be married as white persons because they were white persons in terms of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. This position existed. To a large extent the new measure will remove this difficulty, bringing the definition into line with the definition contained in the Population Registration Act. Of course it does not take it away altogether. The Population Registration Amendment Bill which has passed the Committee stage in this House provides for certain presumptions in relation to the definition which now also appears in this Bill. Those presumptions are of course not in this Bill. So there may still be certain discrepancies. However, there will be further debate on the Population Registration Amendment Bill on Monday and certain amendments will be proposed to obviate a situation where the children of a marriage between white persons—white in terms of a law which prohibits marriage between Whites and non-Whites—shall not be affected as they will be affected by the amendments proposed in the Population Registration Amendment Bill. The hon. the Minister I think will be the first to agree with me that when one is dealing with marriage and when one provides by law that a marriage shall be validated in accordance with certain formulae or definitions, it is terribly important to realize that the children born out of that marriage should be protected and be accorded the same status and privileges as the parents have.

Clause 1 re-casts the question which marriages shall be deemed to be valid marriages. I appreciate that the Minister has indicated that there is no intention of making this provision retrospective. The hon. the Minister nods his head confirming that that is the position. However, this is a matter on which we should like to have some clarity before we deal with it in committee. Certain aspects of the wording of this clause cause one to have a measure of doubt about what is really intended. In the first place, the relevant provision in the Act at the moment uses the present tense. Sub-paragraph (ii) of section 1 of the Act says that any party to such marriage professing to be a European or a non-European, as the case may be, is in appearance obviously what he “professes” to be, or is able to show, in the case of party professing to be a European, that he habitually “consorts” with Europeans as a European, or in the case of a party professing to be a non-European, that he habitually “consorts” with non-Europeans as a non-European. Here the present tense is being used all the time. In this Bill, on the other hand, the past tense is being used. The new sub-paragraph (ii) proposed to section 1 talks about any party to such marriage who at the time of the solemnization of the marriage “professed” to be a white person or a Coloured person, as the case may be, proves that he “believed” in good faith on reasonable grounds that he is what he “professed” to be … The words now being introduced into the Act for the first time are “who at the time of the solemnization of the marriage”. As this subparagraph is worded it could be so construed that it refers to marriages which have taken place already—because it is, as I have said, in the past tense. The person must also now prove that he “believed” then in good faith and on reasonable grounds that he is now what he “professed” to be then. I say a fair construction of these words is that he may be called upon in order to show that his marriage is valid, that he is now what he then professed to be. Of course, the type of situation which has obtained up to date in relation to classification is that there has been a movement from one side of the colour line to the other for a limited number of people. But here we have the added difficulty that what a person is now, i.e. after this Bill becomes law, will be in accordance with the definition in this Bill—in other words, whether he is a white man as here defined. And this is a different definition from what it was before because we are in the process of amending it. It is, therefore, going to be difficult for him to prove that he is now, in terms of this definition, a white person, i.e. what he professed to be in terms of another definition. I appreciate that this is not what it is intended and that is why I do not want to pursue the matter any further at this stage. It would be inappropriate to do so. It will, however, be very appropriate in the Committee stage. I hope the hon. the Minister has taken note of these things so that when we come to the Committee stage we may be able to thrash it out in order to determine exactly what this Bill is getting at. As I have already attempted to show, the drafting here leaves much to be desired.

The Minister then dealt with the question of marriages outside the Republic. I think he said this was intended to deal with a case of a South African male citizen who although he still had South African citizenship went overseas and now had the domicile of another country. He then married a South African female citizen.

Of a different race.

Yes, but a South African citizen. Therefore it was proposed to introduce the concept of South African citizenship in rendering by law marriages contracted outside the Republic null and void. Could the Minister indicate to us how many of such cases there are? On what ground does he anticipate that there will be a lot more of these cases, as he implied in introducing this Bill? I believe at the present moment there are only a few of these cases. Is it wise, under the circumstances, to amend the law to deal only with one or two isolated cases? You see Sir, persons involved here are South African citizens although they have a different domicile. Domicile means that you live in a certain country and that you intend making that country your permanent home. Let us assume that the person the Minister has in mind has gone to America and that it is his intention to settle there permanently. Meanwhile, however, he retains his South African citizenship because it requires a number of years of residence before he can get American citizenship. So this really does not have much to do with it. If he wants to come back to South Africa then what position will he be in? Would his marriage in fact be invalid or not?

Every marriage of a South African citizen to a person of a different race would be invalid.

You see, Sir, the difficulties one may come up against in this regard are quite considerable I submit. Domicile under private international law is accepted as being the law determining the consequences of the marriage. This is accepted everywhere —private international law accepts it, the comity of nations accepts it. You can go into a court anywhere in the civilized world and you can obtain a judgment as to the consequences of that marriage on the basis of where you were domiciled. Citizenship has nothing to do with it. The consequences of the marriage—I do not have to remind the hon. the Minister or the House—are considerable and very important. Perhaps the most important of them all is that you beget children from the marriage. The status of those children is to be determined in accordance with the law of domicile. The hon. the Minister only wants to have this amendment apply if those persons come back. If they come back, their status will be determined in accordance with the law of the country where they are and intend to remain. That may be here or it may not be here. This involves the question of the status of a person, a child, who is or is not legitimate according as to whether or not his parents are lawfully married. That is a matter over which he has no control. But the whole tendency of our law and our thinking over all the years has been to legitimize, wherever it is possible, illegitimate persons who otherwise would be illegitimate.

Then there is a provision in the Act as it stands at the moment which provides that in relation to marriages solemnized in good faith by a marriage officer in this country, any children born or conceived of such marriage before it has been declared by a competent court to be invalid, shall be deemed to be legitimate. It does seem to me, if one is going to introduce yet another circumstance in which children of a marriage could he illegitimate, that that sort of tradition should apply also to those marriages which are contracted out of the Republic.

The situation that we have here is complicated enough as it is. It is difficult enough when one deals with marriages outside of this country. The fact that this statute exists here in South Africa and makes such unions unlawful is not recognized, despite the law of domicile applying in such a marriage, in countries outside the Republic, on the ground that this is not part of the general law which is recognized when one comes to deal with foreign law. Be that as it may, it seems to us that all these difficulties could be resolved. But there should be an intention on both sides that these provisions should be worked out and defined properly and that at no time should one bring hardship upon the results, the children of such marriages, if it can be avoided. Now, this is not the time to do that. So we will deal with all the matters which I have mentioned when we come to the Committee. At this stage we offer no objection to the Bill, but we do hope that the suggestions that have been made will be considered carefully by the hon. the Minister and his department and by all the other hon. members who take an interest in these matters and will deal with these very complicated legal matters, such as we are dealing with here, and with the consequences, which are so important to so many people who have had nothing to do with the original act of marriage.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The measure which we are dealing with to-day is of such a nature that it could definitely be discussed more fruitfully in Committee. The provisions of the Bill exclusively affect domestic matters connected with the attorneys’ profession, they are self-explanatory and hardly merit any argument. Consequently I think that hon. members do not expect me to go into the details of the Bill on this occasion, except possibly for a few aspects which I shall explain briefly later on.

But since we are dealing here to-day with a measure whereby an attempt is being made at the instance of the law societies themselves, to set the household affairs of their profession in order, you will allow me to dwell for a moment on certain aspects of those household affairs which I think are relevant here, and are of fundamental importance to you and to me because they affect one of our professions.

Hon. members are aware that the attorneys’ profession has from time to time in the past come to this hon. House and have, through the official mouthpiece, namely the Association of Law Societies, requested measures to enable it to set its household affairs in order. You are also fully aware that those measures were requested not so much in order to discipline the undisciplined, but to make it possible for you and for me and for the public to enter that house with the certain knowledge that we are not entering a robbers’ cave, but a dignified stronghold the members of which were equipped to serve our best interests.

And how many of us are there who do not know and cannot testify to what a satisfaction it was to us to find an attorney who was worth his salt taking up the cudgels in the interests of his clients? Or is there one amongst us who has not been fascinated by the move and counter-move of two legal practitioners involved in a lawsuit which had as it were developed into a game of chess? But I do not want to emphasize the dramatic element here. I would prefer to call your attention to a few aspects of our mutual friends’ household affairs on which attention is possibly not focused every day and consequently does not always receive our proper appreciation.

The legal profession is no bed of roses without thorns. He who wants to enter the legal profession must be prepared to work hard and in fact to work very hard. You must not allow yourself to be misled by the stories of the big money which can be quickly earned in the attorneys’ profession. Admission to the profession is not the magic wand many people imagine it to be. It requires hard work and concentration to make a success of that profession. You probably know as well as I do that the results of the attorneys’ labours often do not in any way reflect the amount of preparation which went into it. The fact of the matter is that the legal profession is a merciless taskmaster who makes great demands of those wishing to practise it and who does not crown anybody with success without demanding his proverbial pound of flesh.

But, Sir, the road to that profession passes uphill and down dale. He who does not believe that has not yet become acquainted with the demands made upon the prospective attorney before he can enter the portals of the attorneys’ kingdom. And make no error: His admission is by no means the be-all and end-all of his sorrows, because for that person who really wants to be an attorney, who really wants to be his client’s agent, his admission is merely the beginning of a lifelong struggle to keep abreast with what is happening from day to day in the field of legal science.

But let us not tarry any longer here at the portals of the profession. Let us enter these portals and see what is in store for the young man who wants to call himself an attorney. This young man is no free man; he cannot do as he pleases because he, to an even greater extent than you and 1, is bound by a plethora of regulations to play the game according to the rules. Just consider the legal regulations in regard to the trust account which he must open and maintain for the convenience and safety of his clients. Just consider the, one can almost say, autocratic powers of the law societies to have that account audited and even to demand from the bank in question a certificate relating to the balance of that account. What is more, consider the wide definition of unprofessional behaviour which the attorney must continually take into account if he does not want to clash with the Law Society. And who will deny that the sanctions which being found guilty of unprofessional conduct may give rise to, namely being struck off the roll, or being suspended, or the imposition of a fine, are not drastic enough to make a man think twice before breaking the code of his profession. But that is not all. What other profession has proceeded to guarantee, out of its own pocket, the safety of its clients’ money, as the attorneys’ profession has done? Possibly it is not generally known that there is a Fidelity Fund which is financed by the attorneys and from which those who have suffered as a result of the dishonesty of an attorney who went off the rails, can be compensated and are in fact compensated. But let me throw a little more light on this Fund. As you know, it was decided a few years ago that attorneys should be allowed to invest the money which they were holding on behalf of their clients in their trust accounts. When the question arose as to who would be entitled to the interest on such investments, it would not have been inappropriate to have said that they deserved to get that interest, particularly since they had in addition had to accept the risk attached to the investment of trust moneys. But what happened? It was unanimously agreed that the interest earned on such investments should be paid into the Fidelity Fund so that, and this is important, the public could enjoy greater security in respect of the moneys which they had entrusted to members of the profession. And allow me to state here that that Fund has already benefited considerably by the unselfish obligingness displayed by our attorneys in this connection, and that the risk of the public has as a result been reduced accordingly.

Now one wonders—do all these things not testify to a sound state of affairs in the profession, and is this not a profession which is deserving of our respect? Must we not in the light of all these facts find that the attorneys have gone out of their way to make the profession safe for the world? But cannot we as freely ask, what have we done to make the world safe for the attorneys? However, I shall leave that question at that and will not elaborate on it on this occasion.

But now that we are dealing with the household affairs of this profession, I want to turn to the profession itself. As you know, there are four law societies in the Republic to-day, each of which was established by a private Act. Each one of the law societies is an autonomous body and is not bound by the actions or decisions of any of the other law societies. However, the four law societies are united in the Association of Law Societies which is supposed to act as their mouthpiece. However, the Association does not enjoy statutory recognition and is not, to my knowledge, autonomous. Now, to me the present dispensation looks very much like a house divided, and, as you know, such a house cannot, according to the Scriptures, remain standing. I do not want to intimate here that there is a lack of cooperation in that house at the moment, but it seems to me that the time has come when those separate law societies should, as it were, be brought together under one roof. I believe that that will be conducive to greater uniformity and definitely to greater efficiency and will facilitate matters considerably for my Department which continually has to co-operate and link up with the law societies. But I do not want to be misunderstood.

I can understand that there are good reasons why each one of the law societies should want to retain their links with the past and that each one will want to rule the roost in its own field. But neither do I believe that the bringing together of the various law societies under one roof would inevitably lead to any of the law societies having to sacrifice its autonomy. I think that matters could be arranged in such a way that each one could remain autonomous internally, but that externally they could all speak through one mouthpiece. I think that such a step could only be advantageous to the profession and the country, and although this is not the right time or the occasion to go into greater detail I nevertheless want to suggest this for the consideration of the law societies and invite them to consult with my Department in this regard.

But there is another minor matter which I want to bring to the attention of the law societies, and that is the question of training. I am not unaware of the fact that they have already taken steps in this direction, and I do not think it would be inappropriate if I were to mention here to-day that I am convinced that our times and circumstances are in future going to require ever-increasing skill from the legal man in future. We shall therefore have to attune ourselves to to-morrow’s requirements and I think that the law societies have a task to fulfil in this regard and will not flinch from tackling that task in a purposeful way.

And that, Mr. Speaker, brings us to the Bill with which we are dealing here, and in fact illustrates fittingly how the law societies are already alert to the requirements which are awaiting them in this regard. If you were to glance at clause 6 of the Bill you would see that there, inter alia, a step is being taken which is aimed at consolidating the training of the prospective attorney. As you know, the law provides to-day that an attorney cannot employ any person under articles unless he himself has practised for a period of at least three years as an attorney. This is of course being done to prevent the blind from leading the blind. But what happens in practice? An attorney practises for a number of years and is then, at his own request or otherwise, struck off the roll and after a decade or more applies for re-admission. When he is re-admitted he wants to article a clerk and according to G. v. Incorporated Law Society, Transvaal, 1966 (4) S.A. 282, he can proceed to do so immediately after readmission even if he has for a long period of time not been associated in any way with the attorney’s profession or even if he has during that period had nothing to do with the law. The law societies feel that the training of the clerk can be seriously prejudiced in this way and like faithful watchmen on the tower they now want a stop to be put to this, and in this regard they have my wholehearted support.

So you will find in clause 7 that the law societies are in earnest in regard to the training of the prospective attorney. Some of you are probably aware that the provisions whereby an articled clerk has to learn the practical functions of his profession under the direct supervision of his principal or of a partner of the principal are often circumvented in our time. It happens, for example, that the principal opens a branch office at some distant place. He then puts a professional assistant who does not himself have two years practical experience behind him yet in charge of that office and leaves the training of that clerk to the mercies of the professional assistant. Once more it is a case of the blind having to lead the blind. The law societies are, and quite rightly so, not enamoured of that kind of training and I gladly comply with their request to put an end to the circumvention of the law. After all, we do want properly trained legal men, and not merely people who comply ostensibly with the requirements of the law.

You are probably acquainted with the provisions of section 21 (2) whereby articles are invalidated ab initio if the clerk to which they apply holds another office or does other business during his period of service. Now it does happen that a clerk who has been articled sometimes contravenes the provisions in this regard in a quite bona fide way and quite unthinkingly. It is felt that the summary termination of the articles in such a case is too drastic, and I must say that I share this view of the law societies. It has therefore been thought fit to grant the court a discretion in this regard so that amelioration can be granted in meritorious cases.

In conclusion I want to draw your attention to the provisions of clause 9. There is nothing new in the principles contained therein. All that is being done in that clause is to define clearly, in order to promote uniformity, the procedure which has to be followed by a person who has been admitted as an attorney to one division of the Supreme Court and who wants to be enrolled with another division. When the new procedure has been complied with and no objection has been made to his enrolment, the applicant will automatically be entered on the roll in question, as is the position to-day. If some law society or other does object the applicant is quite at liberty, as is the case to-day, to request a mandamus from the court which will force the clerk of the division in question to enter his name on the roll of attorneys. As far as the proposed section 27 (5) in clause 9 is concerned, I can just mention that no person may be admitted as a notary or conveyancer unless such person has first been admitted as an attorney. The same principle is now being adhered to in regard to being entered in the roll of a division other than the division to which the person in question was admitted and this is being done in order to prevent a person from practising in a division as a notary or a conveyancer while he is not entitled to practise in that division as an attorney.

That, then, Mr. Speaker, is all that I find necessary to say in regard to this Bill, and I consequently move.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, this is a Bill dealing with the domestic affairs of the law societies, of lawyers, regulating their admission to the profession, their serving of articles and other things connected with the practising of that profession, including the discipline which is exercised by the societies. The hon. the Minister has taken the opportunity to speak about the profession generally and I am very glad that he has done so. I am especially glad that the Minister has reminded the public again that when dealing with a lawyer they are protected against dishonesty. It seems to me that so many people are still under the impression that if they pay trust money to a lawyer which he uses to his own advantage, they cannot recover unless the money was actually paid into that lawyer’s trust account. This is the impression abroad, i.e. that if he pays the money into an estate account, for instance into a bank, as he is obliged to do by law, they are not protected should he use that money. That, of course, is quite wrong. The Fidelity Fund protects the public in every way, no matter what the lawyer does with that money. If he pays it into no account at all, even if the public hand money over to a lawyer for a certain purpose and it is not used for that purpose then the public are protected.

The Minister has referred to the interest which accrues to the Fidelity Fund. I wish to point out that this Fund is now in an exceedingly strong position and the public need certainly not fear that any claims they should make will not be met.

The Minister has also dealt with other matters. He has suggested that there should be one society for the Republic representing the legal profession. He probably knows that that is under discussion. There is one society in each province and they have a national society, but this society can only make recommendations or act when there is unanimity. One of the difficulties with having one body for the whole Republic is the same which we have with our provincial councils, namely the fears of the smaller provinces. The Minister is probably aware of the fact that the small provinces object because they are jealous of fears of the smaller provinces. The Minister is probably aware of the fact that the small provinces object because they are jealous of their rights and fear that they will be swamped by the two larger provinces. The present organization works efficiently. Nevertheless, I agree with the Minister and I would also prefer to see one association instead of four provincial associations. My reason for saying this is largely that we do have some trouble occasionally because lawyers leave one province to go to another. The Minister has mentioned that by virtue of this Bill before us it will not be so easy for a lawyer now to register in another province if he is in difficulty with his society in the former province. Up to now he could register in another province without his society perhaps knowing about it, but that is dealt with in this Bill and in future a lawyer will not be able to escape so easily when he goes from one province to another.

I do not intend to go into the Bill any further. The Minister has dealt with each of the clauses in turn, and it is only right that the House and the country should know that the societies themselves have asked for this Bill. Indeed, the societies themselves are always alive to the fact that their members have to be properly disciplined and that the public must at all times be sure that they can trust the profession.

The Minister also mentioned that when a person enters this profession he is not merely picking a ripe plum. A lawyer has to work hard to make a success of his profession. One of our difficulties is that fewer and fewer people are entering the profession. Therefore, we have to make it more attractive for them. I hope that the hon. the Minister will bear this in mind and talk to some of his colleagues who are taking away certain work from the profession—I refer to the registration of deeds under certain circumstances. We certainly look to this Minister, after his speech here to-day, to see that the Government at any rate, will see to it that the lawyers get their fair due and their fair share.

Bill read a Second Time.

We on this side of the House recorded our objection to the provision in line 20 in the Committee Stage of this Bill and I would like to point out to you, Sir, that we believe that as this amendment reads, it is not only out of context but in addition to that it defeats the accepted object of the existing legislation. First of all I say that it is out of context because this particular subsection provides for acceptance as a white person or as a Bantu, and the amendment introduces the question of appearance. I submit that these two in this particular clause are in conflict.

In addition to that I say that it is in conflict with the existing legislation because in the group from which it seeks to distinguish people, the Coloured group, you will remember that a sub-division was made into seven various groups. Included in the sub-groups are people such as Griquas, and then I would remind the House that there is another subgroup which was created especially to cope with a group of people in my constituency at the time, the Zanzibari slaves. Amongst these two groups alone there are also, of course, other Asiatics and other Coloured groups. I am sure that amongst these groups there are people who have been accepted in the Coloured group by the hon. the Minister and by the Department in terms of the Act; I am sure there are people who will in fact obviously appear to have been members of aboriginal races or tribes of Africa—many of the Zanzibari, for example—and I would remind you, Sir, that some of these people were issued with reference books as Bantu before they were sorted back into a proper grouping; some have been taken under the care of Custodian of Indians. I say therefore that many of these people are in fact in appearance identical with members of the aboriginal tribes of Africa. I believe therefore that this amendment here is not only out of context because it mixes appearance with acceptance, but also that it is going to defeat the objects of the existing legislation because in terms of the existing legislation people who appear to be members of aboriginal races or tribes of Africa have in fact been classified as members of the Coloured group. We cannot therefore accept a provision such as this and we will oppose it.

Amendments in Clause 1 put and agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 2:

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

I had in mind moving a similar amendment to clause 7 of this Bill in the Committee Stage but it was brought to my notice that it might well not be germane in that clause. Clause 7 is what I call a clause of convenience which makes every clause of this Bill retrospective to the date of the commencement of the original Act in 1950. Clause 7 makes the provisions of the proposed new section 5 (4) retrospective to that date. Subsection (4) provides that if at any time it appears to the Secretary that the classification of a person in terms of subsection (1) is incorrect, he may, after giving notice, alter it in one of two ways; firstly, he may alter it himself or, secondly, he may submit it to a race classification board for that purpose. This applies only to those people who have not been classified by a race classification board; that we accept, but nevertheless this is made retrospective to 1950. Sir, you will recall that in 1962 the definition of a white person under this legislation was changed, and since that date there have been numerous applications to our courts either on the third-party basis or application by the person concerned, where the classification of people has been changed and they have been admitted as members of the white group. Under the 1962 definition I think certain other people were admitted, and before that still further people were classified as being White or non-White (just to divide it into two groups) under the original 1950 Act. I mention that particularly because the provisions of clauses 1 and 2 would of course be made retrospective to 1950 and that virtually will completely alter the description of a white person for purposes of classification. That, in my belief, is going to upset or at least threaten the classification of very many people who thought they had found peace and contentment in their classification under the white group. I do not have to remind you, Sir, that the white group is the group that everybody will aim at because it is the most favoured group; it has more facilities. This, if applied retrospectively, will have an effect in one direction only. It will tend to reduce people classified as White to Coloureds; it cannot work the other way. And what will the effect on them be? It will affect them in many spheres of their lives. It will affect them in regard to the schools they attend and in their social life and in the purchase of land and the right to own land and where they can own it; it will affect them in their association with members of their own families, and it will affect them in regard to job reservation, the amount they are able to earn and the type of employment open to them. It will affect their participation in sport and their electoral rights, and it will affect them under the marriage laws and the Immorality Act, employment in the State service; and it will affect their right to fight for South Africa in the armed services. It will also affect their pensions and family allowances. It will affect every aspect of their lives. It will affect them, too, under this thing which we call “petty” apartheid, their right to use seaside resorts, cinemas, admission to sports fields, the granting of passports and every aspect of their lives. Now I do not want to see this happen to a group of people who, in some cases, will be people who have possibly been classified since 1950, or shortly afterwards, who have found that peace over the years and who have established themselves in the white group. The Minister, in an earlier stage of this debate, said it was not his intention to go back and delve into all of this, but almost in the same breath he broke an assurance given to us by his predecessor. Therefore we are quite convinced that we have to try to get written into this legislation the necessary safeguards. As I pointed out to this Minister before, he is just the Minister and not the law. The courts do not apply him; they apply the law written in the Statute Book. That is what we want to do. We want to safeguard the interests of these people by having written into the legislation the safeguards which this Minister has indicated from time to time during the debate that he would not mind seeing written into the legislation, because he is not entirely against it. Sir, I think that is the least we can do, at this late hour, to make that concession that those people who have established themselves as members of a racial group can in fact remain there and not after all these years, 16 or 17 years after the promulgation of the original Act, find themselves having to uproot themselves and re-establish themselves in a completely different environment, with possibly a rift in the family. We had a case during the Committee Stage indicating how there could be a possible division between mother, father and children, and I am sure that no hon. member of this House wants to see that happen. If hon. members had studied this Bill and had voted individually, I am absolutely sure that I would have a huge majority supporting me in this amendment. I am absolutely sure of that, and the dissent that has come from that side of the House has come from a mere handful. Only five members on that side objected to me. The others are silent because they agree with me.

Order! The hon. member should come back to the amendment.

The object of my amendment is to remove from the application of this reclassification, this possible reclassification, this particular group of people who are at present classified as White. I do not want them to live under the fear of the sword hanging over their heads which will have them reclassified in terms of this legislation as printed as something other than White, which they are now classified and accepted as.

I do not think the hon. the Minister can accept this amendment. The hon. member for Umlazi advanced two arguments to motivate his amendment. The first is that he submitted that in terms of the clauses concerned the Secretary would, whenever he received information regarding a person’s classification, have only two alternatives. He would either have to reclassify the person himself, or he would have to refer him to the board for reclassification. But that is not so. That is not in the clause. The clause provides that he may classify or reclassify, or he may refer the case to the board. But he also has a third alternative. He need not do this; he may leave the matter as it is. If he considers the information he has received inadequate, he may leave the matter at that. Therefore this objection by the hon. member, which means in effect that people will be prejudiced, is unfounded.

If he fails to do that, he is doing something wrong.

The hon. member for Green Point says that if the obvious facts are available to show that the person should be reclassified and the Secretary fails to act, he will be doing something wrong. But then he does something wrong; he will take action if the information is well-founded, but he has a third alternative, and that is to do nothing, if the information is not adequate. That is the first point I want to make, that what the hon. member for Umlazi said, that he had only one of two alternatives, was not correct. He has a third alternative; he may leave the matter as it is.

The other argument advanced by the hon. member was that this clause, as it stands, would have only one effect, particularly as the Act would be of retrospective effect, and that is that people would be down-classified; in other words, Whites would be classified as Coloured, with all the concomitant disadvantages. But I just want to give the hon. member one example to prove to him how wrong he is.

There may be a case where an entire family have very good grounds to be classified as Whites. The mother may be a White and may be classified as a White, and for the sake of argument the father may be classified as a non-White. Those people may have eight children. In that case all the children can be classified as non-White because they follow the classification of the parents. But now this man, who is a Coloured, may have very sound grounds for being reclassified as a White. All the evidence may be in his favour, but for some reason or other, or as a result of an error, the person may be classified as a Coloured and he himself may do nothing about it. He may be an invalid or he may be insane and in an institution. He may be mentally retarded to such a point that he simply does not care what becomes of his family. He may be divorced from his wife and estranged from the rest of his family, and as a result he may have a grudge against his wife and children. As a result he may force his entire family into circumstances in which they should actually not be. In this case the children may submit proof to the Secretary and say: Our father is actually a White and he has a claim to reclassification as a White; we are all suffering because he is classified as a Coloured, and if his classification is corrected we can all be classified as Whites.

Here I have demonstrated to the hon. member that the Act does not function the way he said it did. I also want to advance a further argument. I want to mention another instance which necessitates reclassification taking place in the other directions as well. If his amendment is accepted, the objects of the entire Act will be defeated in this respect. I know of a case, and I have given the information to the hon. the Minister for his use, of a Coloured who lives in a Coloured area, who belongs to a Coloured church and who holds an office in the church as a Coloured, whose children attend a Coloured school and whose wife and children all have mixed birth certificates. At a factory he completed an apprenticeship as a Coloured apprentice and he is still working in that factory as a Coloured. There are two trade unions in the factory, one for Coloureds and one for Whites, and he belongs to the Coloured trade union. But for some reason or other that person has a white identity card. This came to light when he went to the clerk who deals with wages in that factory, to request him to certify his income in order that he could apply for a house in a housing scheme. When the clerk told him that this was not possible because it was a white housing scheme, he said that he had a white identity card. This Coloured has never been a White. He has never lived as a White. He is not a voter on the White Voters’ Roll and he has no claim whatsoever to being a White. If such information comes to the knowledge of the Secretary, should the Act not make it possible for him to effect a change in the classification? This Act is not there, as the hon. member for Umlazi would suggest, to down-grade people. This legislation gives the Secretary the powers he has had through the years, and they are in no way changed through this provision. I want to make this matter quite clear. Nothing new is proposed in this provision. All that is being done, and here hon. members of the Opposition agree with us, is that this Bill provides for that. The only amendment proposed is in line 44, namely that the Secretary may not go back on classifications made by the board or the court, and we all agree on that point. Apart from that the section remains the same, just as it was. Now hon. members come along and see ghosts, and the hon. member wants to defeat the objects of the Act in this respect by his proposal. If this amendment is accepted, it will be impossible for the Secretary to correct any bona fide error of people who have an identity card in their possession to which they are not entitled. This may cause a great deal of hardship, as I demonstrated in my example.

Mr. Speaker, in the light of the speech made by the hon. member for Parow, I think it is important to restate the effect of the amendment, although I will not actually reread the amendment. I am speaking about the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi which I have risen to support. The effect is to prevent, from the day that this amending Act comes into force, the reclassification into another group of those people already classified as White.

The hon. member for Parow mentioned the case of a person who was classified as Coloured. The hon. member also mentioned the fact that it should be “moontlik vir horn om geherklassifiseer te word”, where there is a bona fide error. He said it should be possible for such a person to have his classification changed because he would otherwise suffer great harm. But that too is made possible by the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi; because by his amendment he has opened the door for cases where a person desires a change, and seeks it freely and voluntarily. [Interjection.] Yes, the Secretary then has the power where the aggrieved person seeks this change freely and voluntarily. I think that the main argument of the hon. member for Parow again underlines the need for this amendment, because the hon. member for Parow conceded by implication that the door was completely open to the Secretary to reclassify all those people who are at present classified as White. He conceded that, but said that the Secretary was not obliged to do this. He said that he “may”. Then he goes on to say that if, for example (and this was his third possibility) there was insufficient evidence, the Secretary should not and would not act. The hon. member for Parow was driven to concede that this would be incorrect of him and that he would not be carrying out his duty. Surely that speech, if nothing else, has shown that we would be legislating and administering the law in a most peculiar manner. Surely we must make our laws to accord with what we feel to be right and proper, and we must require of our officials that they administer those laws. We should not place a bad law on the Statute Book and then trust to the reasonableness or otherwise of the Minister and his officials to improve it from time to time. We must not expect of our officials that they will turn a blind eye to wrong situations, again in order to avoid unwisdom in the law. I therefore think that it is important that we do accept this amendment so as to bring this particular clause into line with better notions. The hon. member for Umlazi stated that he believed that he would have great support amongst members of this House if they were allowed a free vote on this clause. I think that that is correct.

I want to stress to hon. members the door we are opening to further anguish and trouble unless it is closed by means of this particular amendment. The position is that until now classification has of course been undertaken in accordance with certain definitions and criteria laid down. As a result of these criteria and definitions which have been embodied in the law for a long time people have been classified by the Secretary, the Board or the court into the various categories. Indeed, the greater part of our population has been classified in this way already. Now the point is that these criteria are being changed. We are getting a new set of criteria. It would not be surprising if in applying these new criteria we got the same person classified differently now. Obviously a number and possibly a large number of people, already classified according to the criteria applying hitherto, could be classified differently in terms of the new criteria. Therefore it could well happen that a person who was classified White under the old criteria, will now correctly have to be classified as Coloured. I do not think that that can be denied.

Correctly classified as Coloured.

Yes. A person previously correctly classified as White could now in terms of the new criteria be correctly classified as Coloured. If the hon. member for Parow shakes his head, then I think that I am on the point of making a convert. Because he does not seem to realize that people could have been classified as White according to the definitions and criteria hitherto valid, and that those same people, since the new criteria are made retrospective and go back to the very start of classification, could be and perhaps should be classified as Coloured. That being so, we have the state of affairs which, as I say. can open the door to the classification of people once more going into the melting pot. Particularly persons who were in any way borderline cases in the past, can well be concerned that they may be informed in due course, after notice—they are entitled to notice —that they are being reclassified as Coloureds. The hon. member for Umlazi, I believe rightly, interpreted the attitude of this House by saying that this would not be the wish of hon. members opposite. They would wish to say: Let bygones be bygones. Let past classifications stand, save in those very rare cases, one of which the hon. member for Parow mentioned, and which, in terms of this amendment, can still be rectified.

How?

The hon. member for Umlazi’s amendment says that where the aggrieved person freely and voluntarily consents to a reclassification, that can be done. This was the case which the hon. member for Parow outlined when he spoke. One really feels that where the hon. the Minister was apparently sympathetic to the approach we made, so much so that he spoke in terms of assurances, surely he ought to do the right thing. He ought surely to bring this Bill into line with his inner sentiments on this point. Surely he ought to accept this amendment. I want to say that we were disappointed that the hon. the Minister, who should have a soft heart on a matter like this, in fact turned out to have a hard heart on this point. But we are giving him a locus poenitentiae, as they say in the Latin classics, namely that opportunity to recant, even at the last moment. We sincerely ask him to be big enough to recant in a matter—which would be, as has been said, so much in accord with the views of so many in this House.

Mr. Speaker, this clause simply brings the definition of the concept “Coloured” into line with all traditional, national, domestic concepts, as well as all international concepts. For that reason I find it so strange that hon. members on the opposite side should nag about something which is such a foregone conclusion. Because it is such a foregone conclusion, I did a very simple thing. I went to the library and I said: Please give me any Afrikaans dictionary of definitions. The librarian gave me this book, namely Die Verklarende Afrikaanse Woordeboek by Kritzinger, Labuschagne and Pienaar. Let us see what they have to say about the concept “Kleurling.” The authors of this book are not politicians. This book was compiled by language experts. They define “Kleurling” as “’n ras van gemengde bloed; ’n nie-blanke”. What could be clearer? If a person’s one parent is a White and his other parent is not, that person is of mixed blood. That applies whether that parent is a Coloured or a Bantu. That person would then be a Coloured. It is so simple. They may tell us that these people were prejudiced by our apartheid policy in South Africa. For that reason I said: Please give me an international dictionary. I was then given Webster’s Third New International Dictionary.

Order! We are only concerned with the legal definition of what “Coloured” means.

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the word “Coloured”. This concept is defined.

We must be guided solely by the legal provision.

That is precisely what I want us to do. We should confine ourselves to the legal provision that a Coloured is a person whose parents are of mixed descent. We accept that as the construction, and we stand by that construction. If we accepted the amendment, we would depart immediately from this definition of what a Coloured is. Here it stands: “A Coloured is a person of mixed race.” I think it is so clear that it is accepted internationally and nationally. In the Bill it is provided that a person whose one parent is White and the other a Coloured, or whose one parent is White and the other a Bantu, is a Coloured. I think that is quite clear.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. member has concluded his speech.

I hope the hon. the Minister is going to give us the benefit of his views on this matter, after the hon. member for Namaqualand has indicated that his attitude is that someone of mixed blood is a Coloured, and therefore he supports this clause and rejects this amendment. I want to remind that hon. member and I want to remind the hon. the Minister of the assurance the Minister gave to my Leader during the Second Reading. The hon. the Minister said (Hansard, 1967, column 3178)—

But the legislation has retrospective effect.

It has retrospective effect only in so far as new classifications henceforth are concerned.

That is not what is stated in the Bill.

But that is the position.

But then the Bill will have to be amended.

I shall go into the question whether that is not stated clearly enough.

He has not done that yet. Sir. He has not indicated to this House whether he has done that yet. Every hon. member who has spoken from the other side, and they are apparently going to support the hon. the Minister, although we have not yet heard from him, has indicated that this amendment should be rejected. not because it is clear that they will not be affected, but because hon. members think that such persons should be affected by the provisions of this clause. That is what the hon. member for Namaqualand said. That is what the hon. member for Parow said. The hon. the Minister will have to clear this up with his own members and with this House. The Minister then went on to say (Hansard, 1967, column 3179)—

It is quite clear from the provisions of this Bill that every single clause is retrospective to 1950. This has been pointed out. All that the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi seeks to achieve is to put into law the undertaking given by this Minister to this House at the Second Reading. That is all it is. The hon. the Minister surely must accept this amendment. All it does is to put into law the assurance that he gave. As the hon. member for Umlazi has indicated, it will not help anyone who is then reclassified—not in bona fide error as in the sort of example given by the hon. member for Parow—to go to court and to complain that this is not in accordance with the assurance given by this hon. Minister to this House. That does not help him at all. The court will say: That has nothing to do with us. We have to have regard to what is in this law. What is in this law is not just that it “may” happen, but in this clause it is provided that in certain circumstances it “shall” happen that if certain facts are brought to the notice of the Secretary, he “shall” reclassify. That is what it says. [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister says that this is nonsense. The Secretary is given the power in the new section 5 (4), which reads as follows—

He “shall”—there is a vast difference between “may” and “shall”.

The hon. the Minister does not have to say that. I appreciate that; the Minister must just relax. Let us now look at the next subsection, which reads as follows—

—and this is applying what has gone before, namely that someone says to the Secretary: “I now point out this fact to you in relation to Mr. X”—

1. … (a) a person shall be classified as a white person if his natural parents have both been classified as white persons;
2. (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 …

The “shall” refers to his parents.

No, it says it “shall” so happen, whether in fact this is so or whether it is not. Paragraph (c) of this subsection says the following—

The Secretary “shall” do so in the application of this section. Surely that is clear enough? May I suggest to the Minister that the position is that if in fact the Secretary did not apply this provision, the Secretary would offend against one of the sections of the Public Service Act.

No.

Oh yes, he would. Mr. S. FRANK: No.

No.

He would not be carrying out the provisions of a statute which it is his duty to carry out. Surely this is the position? The Minister has to satisfy this House that his assurance means something or it means nothing. If he will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi then his assurance means nothing whatever. Why will he not allow this amendment to be put into the statute? Let the Minister add to it, if he wishes, the sort of case the hon. member for Parow dealt with, that is to say genuine bona fide errors, but not genuine bona fide classifications. Because you see, Sir, the position now is different from what it ever was before. The measure that we are dealing with is going to presume all sorts of things that in fact are not so. It is going to presume that, if someone filled in certain information on a card, he is a Coloured person, not because he is a Coloured person in accordance with the tests and the definition that we have in this Act as it is but because of certain presumptions. Because from now on you can suddenly become a Coloured person, whether in fact you are a Coloured in accordance with the test that the Minister says is the proper test— namely acceptance and appearance or a combination of the two—or not. A number of people who have been classified properly as white people in terms of that definition even since 1962 now fall to be reclassified in terms of this measure unless they have a protection in law which this Minister assured this House in fact they have. But what have we had? We have not heard the Minister yet. What have we had from the hon. member for Namaqwaland? He says: “Yes, we agree with this, we reject the amendment.” Anyone who has mixed blood is a Coloured in accordance with the dictionary that the hon. member quoted. He quoted Webster’s as well; he also quoted the Afrikaanse Woordeboek—I do not know which one. He said that a “Kleurling beteken ras van gemengde bloed.” But in terms of this very definition, if both your grandparents were Coloured then, in accordance with this clause of this Bill, you are a white person if your two parents were classified as White in accordance with definitions which have been altered time and time again: This is the third time the definition is going to alter. If they were in appearance obviously White they were entitled to be classified as White, and so they were classified as White—but they may in fact have Coloured blood: A lot of them do. It is no use the hon. member shaking his head: That is the fact of the matter. The sort of definition that he comes with here does not help anyone at all. How mixed does one have to be to be of “mixed blood”? Does one have to be an octoroon or a quadroon or what is it? The fact of the matter is, of course, that this Bill does not deal with that. This Bill lays down certain tests and in the application of those tests certain things are here to be presumed and those things were never presumed before. The hon. member for Umlazi has indicated that the position they have been in over these years is the position they are entitled to remain in. That was the law and they have adapted themselves and adopted a mode of life in line with the law and their classification in terms of the law. Is it right, is it proper, suddenly to say: “I do not care what has happened to you over the last 16 years, I now am going to presume certain things.”

What does this Minister want, why does he introduce this Bill? He says that he introduces this Bill because he wants finality; he does not want this to go on and on, and so he has introduced the most drastic presumption in order to ensure that this question of race classification is stopped once and for all because his presumptions will draw a line right down: It will bring the chopper between them. The amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi will help this Minister, if he would only appreciate it, in bringing finality. It means that he does not have to reclassify or look into any of the classifications of person already classified as White in the past. Surely this helps in the cause which the Minister says is the reason for this Bill? Why does he not accept it? Will the Minister perhaps gets up and indicate to us whether he agrees with the hon. members for Namaqwaland and Parow or whether he will consider this amendment? Will he tell us whether this amendment is not exactly what he said during the Second Reading Debate when he gave this assurance I have referred to? Will he indicate to us what the difference is so that we might be able to examine it and, if necessary, submit an amendment in accordance with what he in fact did mean when he used the words that I quoted?

In conclusion I wish to say that the hon. member for Parow said, in an interjection, to the hon. member for Pinelands that a person cannot be both White and non-White, and the hon. member for Pinelands indicated to him that a man who was a white person before this Bill was passed, in accordance with the law and the definitions of the law up to the time this Bill becomes law, could now suddenly become a Coloured person. Yet the hon. member for Parow said that a person cannot be both! That is precisely what a person can be because he might in fact have filled in a census form or some other form, in which he indicated that he was of mixed origin, in terms of this Bill he will be a Coloured person; in terms of the Bill as it stands he is presumed to be a Coloured person. Surely this is not what the Minister had in mind? If it is what he had in mind, then the words that he uttered during the Second Reading Debate certainly misled me. I hope that the Minister will get up and tell us what his attitude is, what he did mean, and why it is that he cannot accept this amendment if the words he used in the Second Reading, if the assurances he gave this House during the Second Reading, had any meaning at all, and any substance whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker 1 could have risen at an earlier stage, but I first wanted to give the hon. member for Durban (North)—who was absent, perhaps for very good reasons during the whole week we devoted to the debate on the Committee Stage—an opportunity to state his misconceptions, misconceptions which we thrashed out and debated exhaustively at the Second Reading and at the Committee Stage. For that reason I waited for the hon. member for Durban (North) to get up first; I knew he would place these ridiculous constructions on the Bill. In the first place he contended that this clause left the Secretary no choice whatsoever as far as reclassification was concerned: that he was obliged to reclassify a person if information came to his attention. There is no need to argue that with the hon. member. If his legal knowledge is of any value to him, he should concede that he is reading the words “may” and “shall” together and that he is misconstruing them altogether. He is the only lawyer in this country to place that construction on the clause. That is only one of the erroneous statements made here by the hon. member. I am convinced that the hon. member could not give me the name of one lawyer of repute who would construe the clause as he construes it.

The hon. member said, quite rightly, that the power conferred on the Secretary by this measure may inter alia have the effect that people who are classified as White or as Coloured could be reclassified if information came to the attention of the Secretary which in his opinion justified reclassification. That is true; nobody denies that. But the fact of the matter is that this entire Bill is being made retrospective. Judgements given by the courts prior to the promulgation of this Bill are deemed to be judgements in terms of the measure we are now dealing with, and decisions by the boards are deemed to be decisions by the Secretary under the new Act. He cannot refer a decision by a board back to the board. What can actually happen is the following: There are two categories of people as far as classification is concerned. In the first place there are those who are classified according to their birth certificates or according to information furnished in the census returns of 1951, and against whose classification there has never been any objection, either by themselves or by a third party. In other words, they were classified and they were classified on those grounds. Then there are people who were also classified in this way, but who lodged an objection against their classification with the Secretary, who then referred their case to the boards, which gave a ruling on them. Those who could not get satisfaction from the boards went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court gave its ruling. It is this group of people whom I regard as having been classified, as people who have been reclassified, but in terms of this Bill any classified person who has never undergone reclassification in the widest sense of the word, will be entitled to bring the error of his classification to the attention of the Secretary.

The Secretary, as the hon. member for Parow said, has the power, after having considered the particulars which came to his attention, to decide whether or not he will reclassify that person. He may decide that he himself will not reclassify the person because it is absolutely clear to him that the person has been correctly classified, but if it is absolutely clear to him that the classification was wrong, he may reclassify him. If he does not want to take the responsibility upon himself, he may refer the particulars which have come to his attention to the board and then the board classifies the person. That classification by the board will then be deemed to be a classification by the Secretary. If the board declines to reclassify the Secretary will not be able to appeal, because the classification will then have taken place on behalf of the Secretary, and surely one cannot appeal against one’s own decision. But if a person is reclassified, he will still have the privilege he has at present, to lodge an objection against his reclassification within 30 days or, with the approval of the Minister, within a year, and he is at liberty to take it as far as the courts.

What hope has he with all these presumptions against him?

I am not speaking of his chances now. The attitude of hon. members on the opposite side is probably that the poor people with regard to whom information now comes to the attention of the Secretary are incorrectly classified. These are people who would in any event have had no hope of being reclassified, even if they had been able to appeal or to lodge objections. But the Opposition wants us to open up new opportunities for these people, and that is what we do not want to do, and I am not going to do that. That is where this side of the House and that side of the House differ fundamentally. Mr. Speaker, there are people who were classified too high purely on the grounds of information contained in the census form, a form which they had perhaps not completed themselves. Those people are not to blame; the census enumerator may be to blame. They were classified, according to the particulars the Secretary had before him, in a race group to which they never belonged, to which they never wanted to belong and with which they had no contact. It does not always work one way only. There are other people who are classified too low. I admit that there are more people who are classified too low who object to their classification than people who are classified too high. Here in the Cape there are considerable numbers of persons who are classified too high, people who never were entitled to the higher classification and whose way of life, association, etc. prove that they are not entitled to the higher classification. Hon. members talk about “hardships”, about disruption, about the fragmentation of families. Is it hardship only if a person is refused classification in the higher or more civilized white race group? Would it not also be hardship if he is classified too high, in a race group to which he is not adjusted and to which his children and his wife are not adjusted? Surely he wants to be with his wife and children?

The case which was mentioned here by the hon. member for Parow illustrates what I mean. The hon. member for Parow did not say, as the hon. member for Pinelands suggested, that the person to whom he referred had been classified as a Coloured; he said that he had been classified as a White, that he was nevertheless accepted in the Coloured community, that he wanted to be accepted as a Coloured and that he revealed in a roundabout way that he had a white identity card and was classified as a White. If the case mentioned by the hon. member for Parow comes specifically to the notice of the Secretary, I think the Secretary should investigate the case with all its implications and if possible carry out a reclassification. If he is not prepared to do that, he should refer it to the board. In terms of the new Act he will have to be reclassified. Then one has what the hon. members want, in the case of this one isolated family we are now taking as an example. Then the father and the mother and all the children will be together, and surely there will be no hardship. This is actually the essence of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Umlazi. He does not care whether it is done. If I understood him correctly, his objection is no longer that there can be reclassification. His objection is actually that there can be reclassifications without the people concerned having to ask for them. That is the sugar coating he gives his amendment, and which he himself did not even emphasize; nor did any of the supporters of his amendment, because they overlooked it altogether. They came to the actual intention of his amendment. The fact that that sugar coating is attached will not put me off.

I think that after all the talk we now have so much clarity that we will gain nothing by accepting an amendment of this nature. It will perhaps defeat the object of the Bill to a certain extent. I want to repeat the assurance which was given in 1962. Then it was said that there would be a witch-hunt as a result of the additional definition of a White, but that witch-hunt did not take place; the definition functioned well. For that reason I am just repeating what I said. Give us a chance and see what happens next year or the following year. Surely we come here continually, and we may then be brought to book, because these classifications, and particularly the reclassifications, are not things which can be kept secret; surely they become known, and we may then run the gauntlet, if it is necessary, on the grounds of injustice or witch-hunting or any of those ghosts which are now held out by those hon. members to see whether they cannot swing public opinion to their side in respect of this Bill. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment.

The more I hear the hon. the Minister in these debates on the various stages of the Bill, the more I come to the conclusion that the Minister is not fully acquainted with the provisions of this Bill. The Minister has completely misunderstood, for example, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi. This is perfectly clear from the remark he made just before he sat down. The Minister suggested what the hon. member for Umlazi was getting at by this amendment, but that is not at all what this amendment is getting at. It is not even what the words say. The amendment is perfectly clear. It is to provide that no reclassification can be made unless the person concerned freely and voluntarily consents to such alteration. This is quite simple, and surely the Minister can understand that. We cannot understand, despite the Minister’s lengthy attempt a moment ago to try to justify his refusal to accept the amendment, why he is not prepared to do so. Surely it is common justice that persons who have already been classified under this Government’s legislation may have to live for years under that classification and should not have the whole matter reopened unless they are prepared to consent to it. If there has been a genuine mistake and the person concerned wishes to have his classification altered, then surely it would be reasonable under those circumstances, but if he is not willing to have himself reclassified, if he has accepted the classification he has been given, under which he may have lived for a number of years, what justification is there for reopening the matter and reclassifying him simply because some official, whether it be the Secretary or someone else, believes that there has been a mistake and that the man should now be reclassified? This is an entirely heartless way of looking at it, and the more we go on with this Bill the more it appears to us that the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite are entirely heartless in these matters, despite their protests to the contrary.

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

Take the Minister’s attitude also during his address this afternoon when he said there may be hardship when a man has been classified too high. What right has the Minister to say that he has been classified too high? If he has been classified in terms of this law passed by this Government, what right has the Minister to say that he has been classified too high? What does he mean by that? If the person concerned prefers to have that classification—and obviously what the Minister means is a white classification—surely the Minister will concede that there is every reason, under the Government’s laws, for people to wish to be classified as White rather than as Coloured. Yet the Minister says there may be hardship in some cases if there has been a classification which is too high. To my way of thinking, this is a completely callous way of approaching it.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the amendment. He is repeating himself now.

With respect, I am dealing with the Minister’s argument. You see, Sir, this is one of the things we have been complaining about in regard to the Minister throughout the various stages of the debate.

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

When we are on our feet arguing, the Minister carries on conversations with other people and then he misconstrues our arguments.

Order! I will call upon the hon. member once more to come back to the amendment, or else I must ask him to resume his seat.

The Minister said that the Secretary has power to classify or not. The word used in subsection (4) is “may”. That word does suggest, quite correctly, that the Secretary may do so if he considers the circumstances justified, or he may not. But what the Minister overlooks—and this was the argument of the hon. member for Durban (North)—was that other clauses in the Bill seem to make it obligatory on the Secretary, and the Minister did not deal with that argument at all. The hon. member for Durban (North) referred to a particular section, but the Minister chose to ignore it. He referred to subsection (5), in which the word used is “shall”. Subsection (5) says “in the application of this section”, which is the same section under which the powers of the Secretary to reclassify appear.

That provision says “a person shall be classified as White under certain circumstances and a person shall be classified as Coloured under certain circumstances”. The argument of the hon. member for Durban (North) was that if the parents have been classified in a certain way, subsection (5), because of the use of the word “shall”, makes it obligatory that the child shall be classified in a particular way. That subsection makes it, to our way of thinking, obligatory for the Secretary to reclassify in a particular way. Therefore it goes against the use of the word “may” in subsection (4).

Order! I want the hon. member to return to the amendment. We are not discussing the clauses of the Bill, we are discussing an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, with respect I am putting forward my views as to why this amendment is so necessary because the whole object of this amendment is to restrict the powers of the Secretary in regard to reclassifications and to restrict them in such a way that he will exercise those powers only if the person concerned freely and voluntarily consents to the alteration. One of the arguments advanced by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Parow, was that the Secretary is not obliged to exercise the power because of the use of the word “may”. I have pointed out that in subsection(5) the word used is “shall” and suggested that the Secretary is obliged to do so in the cases referred to in subsection (5). But our argument goes further than that. We say that the Secretary should not have any discretion to alter a classification where the person concerned does not freely and voluntarily consent to an alteration. This is the crux of the matter and to this we have had no reply from Government members.

I should like to point out another misrepresentation by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister suggested that where there has been a classification after a decision of a board or the courts, the Secretary may not exercise those powers. This is not what subsection (4) stipulates. Subsection (4) refers only to a classification in accordance with the decision of a board. It says nothing about a classification in accordance with the decision of a court. Therefore, as subsection (4) reads, the Secretary has the power to exercise his discretion in cases where there has been a classification in accordance with a decision of the court. Surely this in itself is quite unreasonable. People go to all the trouble of making an appeal and appearing before the courts and the courts make a decision but even in those cases, because the decision is that of a court and not a board, the Secretary may reopen the whole matter.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parow says that a decision of a court is regarded as a decision of a board. This is absolute nonsense. A board and a court are two entirely different bodies.

Order! The hon. member has made that point at least six times.

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the amendment to subsection (4) and I am pointing out the instances in which under the section as it now reads, the Secretary is empowered to reclassify. I am pointing out that even in the case of a classification in accordance with the decision of a court, the Secretary in terms of the section as it now reads, may reclassify. [Interjection.] It is not nonsense. If the hon. member will read subsection (4) he will see that it is only where there has been a classification in accordance with the decision of a board that he cannot reopen the matter. These are the reasons why we say that it is so essential to limit the provisions of this section in accordance with the proviso moved by the hon. member. That proviso limits the powers of the Secretary to reopen and reclassify to cases where the person concerned freely and voluntarily consents.

Order! The hon. member has made that point at least six times.

I am now dealing with the arguments raised by the hon. the Minister to justify his refusal to accept the amendments. I now come to the hon. the Minister’s argument in regard to appeals. He suggested that there is a full power of appeal because a person who is aggrieved by a classification may appear before the board and thereafter go on appeal to the courts. What the hon. the Minister omitted to tell the House is that in terms of this very Bill which he is putting through this House, the powers of appeal which exist under the present Act are being curtailed. They are being curtailed under the new section 11 (7), so that even those few rights which aggrieved persons have under the legislation as it exists at the moment are being curtailed by this amending Bill.

Order! I think that the hon. member is now delivering a Third Reading speech. If he carries on like this, he will have nothing to say at the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parow has been interjecting continually since I started my speech and I, see no reason why I should answer any questions from him. I have dealt with the arguments of the hon. the Minister to show this House that none of these arguments justify the refusal to accept this proviso. I suggest that in the absence of some justification from one of the hon. members on the other side of the House, we can hardly be expected to pass this clause in this form when we have had no satisfactory reason for refusing to accept the proviso moved by the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the hon. member for Musgrave to read section 11 (9). It reads as follows—

I hope the hon. member will now realize that the Secretary …

Order! I should like the hon. member not to elaborate on that, because it is irrelevant.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that the Secretary did not have the right to reclassify after a court had given its ruling, and that is not so. I just wanted to point that out to the hon. member. He is mistaken once again if he interprets the powers of the Secretary as providing that he shall classify if a case is brought to his attention. It provides clearly that he “may” do that. Section 11 (4) states: “In the application of this section.” In other words, it is only after the Secretary has exercised his discretion to classify or not that subsection (5) becomes relevant. In that case he is therefore also mistaken. I wanted to object to the treatment of this whole amendment. I want to point out that this clause is exactly as it has been since 1950. The hon. the Minister has not introduced an amendment of that section. The section has been there since 1950. It was dealt with in 1962 when the amending Bill was dealt with. Now hon. members want to amend this section, which is not being amended by the Government. They should have moved this amendment in 1950 if they wanted it. This section was inserted in 1950. It empowers the Secretary to reclassify. There is a simple reason for this, and that is why it is still in operation. The classification of 1950 was to take place on the basis of a census to be taken in 1951. The census, as was envisaged even then, is of course very unreliable. In such a case the information is not furnished by the person concerned. The census enumerator makes a very rough estimate of what he thinks the person is, and he may then easily classify incorrectly. For that reason this section was included in the Act in 1950. In terms of it any bona fide error could be corrected. That is why it was inserted in 1950, why it was left there in 1962, and why it is now being left again.

Now there are other definitions and criteria.

No, there is a different definition of what a White is. That is true. Theoretically the hon. member for Pinelands is right. If they are now reclassified, such a person may be classified differently. That is true, but the principle was established that bona fide errors could be corrected. That the definition is now different, is something else again. It is in terms of a different paragraph, in respect of which hon. members also moved other amendments, namely that the definition should no longer be applicable to existing cases. That is something else. That is the amendment they now have in mind. As far as this paragraph is concerned, it should remain there with a view to any bona fide errors. The hon. member for Parow pointed out quite clearly how easily an error could arise, for example if a person was classified as a White by the census enumerator but was actually a Coloured. It is now the position that that person is still a Coloured. He is obviously a Coloured. He is accepted as a Coloured. He is married to a Coloured and his children attend a Coloured school. Now the hon. members want that person’s classification to remain valid. It will be quite unsatisfactory, it will be a crime to his family if there is no means of reclassifying him. The hon. member says that he should give his consent, but I do not agree with him. He is definitely a Coloured. Why should he give his consent? If he does not give his consent, it means that he embarrasses his entire family. I do not know whether hon. members are trying to embarrass the Government in the Press and abroad, because one person must now be declared a white person while his wife and children are accepted as Coloureds. It also works the other way round. Strangely enough, hon. members do not move an amendment that a person who is classified as a Coloured may not be classified as a White without his consent. They do not move any such amendment. They have only moved an amendment that a person who is classified as a White should give his consent before he may be classified as a Coloured. They have moved no amendment that a person who is classified as a Coloured may object and say that he should be classified as a White. One cannot make a law which works one way only. We must make a comprehensive law to cover everything; otherwise it would be unjust. The position is simply that we have the Minister’s assurance that there will be no unnecessary delving in the past. That assurance has been given before. What has happened in recent years? As I said, we have had this provision since 1950. That is 17 years ago. In all these 17 years, if one takes it as a percentage, 0 per cent has been reclassified. You must bear in mind that this was a period in which third-party objections were still valid. Although a third party could object, that right was almost never used. The percentage is probably 0. Now we abolish that possibility of a third-party objection because the position would be even more difficult and even more impossible as far as reclassification is concerned.

Then why do you not accept the amendment?

We must retain it for cases such as those I have just mentioned and the ones mentioned by the hon. member for Parow. There are exceptional cases where there will be no injustice, but in respect of which we have to see to it that justice is done. In order that justice may be done, it is necessary that the Secretary should have that right.

The hon. and learned member for Omaruru has made two somewhat strange proposals and suggestions to this House. The first is that the new section 5 (4), if I understood him correctly, has been in existence for 17 years, and that nothing new is being introduced into this Bill. Either he or the hon. the Minister is slightly misinformed or have been insufficiently briefed in regard to this Bill. This is what the hon. the Minister said (Hansard, 1967, Col. 3178):

In simple language, the hon. member for Omaruru will have to think again if he says that there is no amendment under section 5 (4). [Interjections.] It is an extended right for the Secretary, and if it is an extended right, it is an amendment. The second point raised by the hon. member for Omaruru, which comes as a surprise to me, is in regard to why he chooses to oppose this amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi. I can understand it coming from the hon. member for Parow, but not from the hon. and learned member for Omaruru. He is now prepared to support a proposition that a State official may or may not act, may or may not exercise a duty, whereas the whole argument we have had in regard to this Bill has been in respect of the extension of section 1, in order that the Judges should be directed as to how they should carry out the law. The very rights and discretions which were vested in the courts are now to be vested in an official.

Order! The hon. member is now going altogether too far. He is making a speech on the Second and Third Readings at the same time, and not on this amendment at all.

With respect, Sir, the hon. the Minister has suggested that there is no need for us to accept this amendment at this stage because—I think these were his words—he said: Let us see what happens. This law will be carried out in a reasonable manner. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that the classifications which have now been completed have been completed either departmentally or by the Classification Board or on appeal to the Supreme Court. When I asked the hon. the Minister whether there had been any miscarriage of justice in regard to the 108 persons who were able to prove that they were White and are now classified as White, the Minister correctly said that the law had been applied—and correctly applied—both by the court and by the appeal board. He has now gone further. He says that in any event, if this Government official should make a reclassification in terms of this 1967 Act, there is no hardship, because after all there is a right of appeal. I would ask the Minister if that is so. Is he correct in making that statement? Because, Sir, under section 11 of the Act as it will be amended, there is a right of appeal against a classification, but there is no suggestion of a right of appeal against a reclassification. The right of appeal exists against an initial classification which must be done within 30 days or within the one year which is allowed by the Minister. If the Minister will go further he will find under the new subsection (2) inserted by clause 4 of this Bill that “a minor who is not required to be classified in accordance with the provisions of section 5 (5) may himself object …”. But there is no right of appeal whatsoever when subsection (5) of this section is applied. It is for that very reason that I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi, because if that official now reclassifies any child by reason of this 1967 measure because of the compulsion under the new section 5 (5) inserted by clause 2 of this Bill, there is no right of appeal and he will suffer the consequences of that reclassification throughout his lifetime.

Amendment put and the House divided:

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

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

I rise to move the amendment as printed in my name—

Sir, the House in Committee considered a similar amendment. I move the present amendment at this stage because from the debate which followed when the House was in Committee, it became apparent from the attitude of the Minister that the amendment which I seek becomes more and more necessary. Sir, the House at Second Reading and in Committee has approved of the amendment of section 1 of the principal Act and I would like to draw your attention to the effects of these amendments because these effects are material to the amendments which I now move. Section 1 of the Act, as amended, has the effect of enlarging upon the existing definition which was confined to appearance and acceptance; it is enlarged upon by means of certain directives which have to be taken into account. Sir, the hon. the Minister in dealing in the Committee Stage with these directives put them in two different categories, i.e. those which must be complied with and those which were merely guide lines for the authority concerned in determining the race classification of the individual. The hon. the Minister, when dealing with this matter in the Committee Stage said this (col. 3890)—

One would have thought that that would be a fairly acceptable approach, but the hon. the Minister, in replying to the hon. member for Boland, said this (Col. 3893)—

Then he goes on—

If one looks at the requirements which have to be complied with, one finds in section 1 (2) (a) that certain matters shall be taken into account. In paragraph (b) there is a clear statement that “it shall be assumed”; in (c), “a person shall be deemed not to be generally accepted”, and so on throughout the whole of that whole definition clause; so in determining the position of an applicant a stricter definition has to be applied and the Minister has gone so far in this Bill as to insert a new subsection (5) in section 5, which is referred to in the definition clause—

In other words, section 5 (5) has become an obligatory portion of our legislation; it is obligatory now in all its detail; it becomes obligatory under paragraph (b), to which my amendment has reference, if one parent of a child is classified as Coloured, for that child to be classified as a Coloured person. This definition is quite inflexible. A child in years to come may be a white child in appearance, according to habit and custom, by acceptance and according to education; the child may fulfil everyone of the new provisions of section 1 but if a parent has been classified as Coloured, that offspring must be classified as Coloured. I do not need to explain to the hon. the Minister how circumstances of that nature may arise. They might arise as the result of a perfectly legal marriage according to the laws of South Africa; they might arise where both parents at the time of their marriage were in fact classified as White but where on some future occasion for some reason or other, one or other of the parents was reclassified as Coloured. The consequences which I have mentioned here would then follow as far as the descendants are concerned. Sir, the Minister said that this would never happen; that it was not intended that there should be any reclassification of children.

Take the case I mentioned to him earlier in the Committee Stage. He said that if the one parent’s application for reclassification was not successful and it was held that one parent was Coloured and one was White, the children who had white birth certificates would remain White. But that is not in accordance with the Bill which is before us to-day. The Minister even went so far as to say that under the legislation he was introducing, descent had nothing to do with classification. Sir, if the child is the descendant of two parents, one of whom is Coloured, that child must be classified as Coloured, no matter what the birth certificate says or what his appearance is. [Interjection.] I must say that the Minister has been frank with us in discussing some of his problems, and the Minister himself said that he was no lawyer, but I must ask him to have regard to the advice which is available to him, as to what will happen and what legal consequences will flow from this legislation if it is passed in this inflexible way in which he proposes to pass it. This clause is imperative. There is no option under clause 5 (5) in the hands of the Secretary that he may or may not classify the children in a certain way. There is no discretion vested in the hands of the Secretary or of the court. He must classify, because of the enactment before us, no matter what the consequences are to the younger generation. But it goes even further. We are not legislating only for to-day or for to-morrow, but for future generations, and there is not one hon. member in this House who can say …

Do not exaggerate.

The hon. member says I must not exaggerate. I want to ask whether there is one hon. member in this House who can say categorically that there is not a single wrong classification on the register. And if there is one classification which may possibly be wrong, that error will be perpetuated and will apply to the children of that person, in terms of this cause. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Prinshof knows very well that if the 30 days have passed and the Minister’s period of discretion of one year has passed, there can be no objection and nobody can ask for a reclassification. But the Secretary may in his discretion do so.

Yes, and the Secretary must use a discretion which can be tested in the courts.

I trust the hon. member for Prinshof will get up and explain to me where in this Bill there is any right of appeal against the classification under clause 5 (5).

Order! The hon. member should not be led astray.

Then I just move the amendment standing in my name.

The amendment moved by the hon. member will have the effect that this clause will read as follows, “a person shall be classified as a Coloured person if his natural parents have both been classified as Coloured persons”. This is similar to the amendment moved by the hon. member at an earlier stage. In repeating the proposal the hon. member once more used the argument that this legislation was going to perpetuate to the children the injustice of a possibly incorrect classification. Sir, things become incomprehensible when at one moment there is an amendment of the Opposition before this House in which they state that we are to keep the door wide open and may not come to finality, and when at the next moment the same Opposition complains that in some respects we do want to come to finality as regards classification. What does the Opposition want? I just want to say that as regards this specific clause, as well as the others, I think there is one cardinal difference in our approach which has not been mentioned here yet.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to deal with the approach now. Let us confine ourselves to the amendment.

I accept your ruling, Sir. Unfortunately I shall therefore have to leave the other matters, but as regards this point, there is, according to the Opposition, a certain group of people who simply must not be classified. That is what it amounts to. If this amendment were to be accepted and if these words were to be omitted, I want to ask the Opposition this: As regards this eventuality, of children being born and of one parent being white and the other being Coloured, how are such children to be classified?

On their own merits?

If that is to be done on their own merits, the matter becomes even more incomprehensible. A short while ago they spoke of own choice; now they speak of own merits. Then we once again come back to the provisions of clause 1, and in this regard I have to bring in clause 1. In the new section 1, subsection (2) (d) (iii), the same qualifications as those embodied in this clause have been accepted, and for the sake of clarity I have to read that. In terms of that clause classification is effected in such a way that a person, for the purposes of his classification as a Bantu or Coloured, “admits or has admitted that either of his natural parents is or was not generally accepted as a white person”; and this clause has already been accepted. Now the hon. member is asking that a subsequent clause, with exactly the same content, should be deleted.

On the basis of the usual method of reductio ad absurdum lawyers opposite must at least admit that the position may arise at some stage that a number of persons will be left who must necessarily be classified. I am calling it that method because in the original Act “a Coloured person” is described as “a person who is not a white person or a Native”. Definitions are then given in that Act of a “White person” and of a “Native”. Should the Opposition then not at least make a proposal for the substitution of this clause? The children born from these marriages must be classified. What does the hon. member suggest? How are we to classify them? That is the essence of the matter, but the hon. member does not suggest anything in that regard in his amendment. Or does the Opposition want to suggest with this amendment that the uncertainty for such children should be postponed over the years, the very thing in regard to which they pleaded at another stage that that should be brought to finality? I do not think this amendment can be accepted.

Order! I should like to warn hon. members that they should confine themselves to the amendment.

I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point. My reason for doing so is, apart from those put forward by the hon. member himself, to give the Minister room within which to manoeuvre—I want him to have a little space which will enable him to consider cases on their merit. The hon. member for Witbank has quite rightly pointed out that when it comes to defining a Coloured person it is being done by way of exclusion. The Act says a “Coloured” person is a person who is not a White person or a Native.

But look at the amendment.

The hon. member for Prinshof, who is now interjecting, had an amendment against which we voted …

Order! That is not under consideration now. The hon. member must now come back to the amendment.

The amendment accepted in clause 1 was put in in order to ensure that no Bantu went into the Coloured group. The section we are now seeking to amend says that one of the parents of a person should not be a Coloured or a Bantu. Well, we have already accepted an amendment designed to ensure that a Bantu cannot slip into the Coloured group.

Order! That is not under discussion now.

But, Mr. Speaker, we are reducing this thing to absurdity if we do not accept this amendment, because in one clause we are saying that no person who according to appearance is a Bantu can be a member of the Coloured group, whereas here we are saying that in fact that can happen. It is only natural that a person descended from a Bantu looks like a Bantu. Surely that is logical.

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the amendment.

This amendment aims, amongst other things, to remove the possibility of this happening. This is the point I want to make. I want to point to the absurdity that will result if the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Green Point is not accepted.

As a matter of courtesy more than anything else, I just want to reply by saying that the hon. member for Umlazi said that he wanted to give me more elbow-room. But for more than 17 years—at the beginning a little more than later—there has been more than sufficient elbow-room, so much so that that created problems for us, ones of which hon. members are aware and the consequences of which they want us to avoid—consequences such as human unhappiness, etc. The essence of this amendment is that people who are born of parents of mixed classification—for example, white and Coloured or Bantu—should be given the opportunity of also being registered as white. That is all this amendment means. We say, “No”, they have to be classified as Coloureds.

You do not understand the amendment.

That is the only difference. The legislation states that children born of parents of mixed classification will be Coloureds. Hon. members opposite, however, seek to omit this provision. They do not want us to lay down at all that children born of parents of mixed classification are to be classified as Coloureds.

But it is not a white or a Bantu; it is Coloured. So it makes no difference.

But if one of his parents is registered as white and the other as Bantu or Coloured, what is he then? It is a person like that you want me to have classified as white. I cannot do that, and consequently this amendment is not acceptable to me.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the Bill.

Upon which the House divided:

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

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

Question affirmed and the amendment negatived.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the following amendment—

The proposal is to add a proviso, to read;

I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Justice is here too because, as he will appreciate, this is a subject which will be dealt with in a Bill relating to the prohibition of mixed marriages, which is also before the House. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment because it provides simply that no presumption shall operate against the children of persons who are married lawfully as white persons, in other words persons who have been allowed to get married as white persons because, in accordance with the law relating to marriage, namely the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949, they are regarded as white persons. Surely it is not the intention that the children of those persons, lawfully married because they are white in accordance with the definition laid down by the laws of this Parliament, should be presumed to be Coloured if one of the parents happens to be classified as a white person and the other classified as a Coloured person in terms ol another law. This is not just one of those cases one snatches out of the air. This is not just a legal example that one gives to students. There are many such cases that exist. The hon. the Minister is aware that there are in fact some cases pending now, on which his decision has to be given. These cases do occur and many people are advised, in the circumstances in which they sometimes find themselves, to get married. When people find themselves in the position that they have fallen in love—very often the girl is pregnant—they find that the law allows them to get married, despite the fact that one of them is classified in accordance with the Population Registration Act as a White and the other as a Coloured. Who can blame them for taking that advice? The law, however, stands as it stands, and in accordance with that law many couples have married, despite this. I want to say that they have not just got married. They have married on the basis that they have declared the fact that one of them has a Coloured identity card. They have declared that fact and then produced proof to the satisfaction of the chief magistrate that they are in fact, in terms of the definition both white persons, and therefore entitled to be married. The children of such persons one of whose classifications has not been altered to white, in terms of this clause, without the proviso which I now propose should be added, are to be presumed to be Coloured. Surely if, in accordance with one law, the parents are white, the children must be classified in accordance with the laws and not in accordance with the presumption. Surely persons married as white persons do not change their status simply because we change our laws. Certainly the sanctity of marriage is something which we have a duty to protect. I think that persons are entitled to assume that if they marry as white persons in terms of the existing law, they will not be subjected to any disabilities in regard to that contract and the consequences of it, as a result of some legislation which might follow at a later stage. Their action was perfectly lawful. They are lawfully married as white persons. We encourage such persons to beget children. Surely it is the wish of everyone in this House that children of such persons, married as white persons, should not be presumed to be Coloured. I should like the hon. the Minister to note that I am not suggesting that they “shall” be classified as white persons. I am not suggesting that at all. All I am saying and all that this amendment says is that this presumption shall not operate in respect of those children. In other words, as far as those children are concerned, where one parent is classified as a white person and the other parent is classified as a Coloured person, but they are married as white persons in accordance with the law, in determining their classification, that classification shall be determined in accordance with the definition and on the merits of each case which comes before the department. I think that that is very reasonable and I feel sure the hon. the Minister will accept it. I am delighted to see that he is discussing the matter with the hon. the Minister of Justice who is going to have to deal with this matter himself when the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Amendment Bill comes forward. The look on the Minister’s face seems to have changed, and so with confidence I move my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that this afternoon we have at least had a new sound in the mental merry-go-round we have had here. I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North). I do not believe that the amendment will contribute in any way to a different classification or to a correct classification or to anything of that nature. The hon. member spoke here of presumptions, but in the new section 5 (5), inserted by clause 2 of the Bill, there is, of course, no question of presumptions. There is no presumption that the child is a non-white or a Coloured if the parents are classified as white and Coloured. If one parent is classified as white while the other parent is classified as Coloured, the child is classified as Coloured. Here there is no question of any presumption as such: It is a plain classification, namely the child is Coloured.

The hon. member referred to the prohibition on mixed marriages. Let us try to form a mental picture, one which is practical, of the cases to which the hon. member referred. There may be one case …

Order! I trust the hon. member does not want to go too far.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am merely dealing with this amendment.

The amendment is a very limited one and I do not want hon. members to digress from it. This afternoon hon. members have been speaking haphazardly and I should like to see that hon. members confine themselves to this amendment.

The position is that we are restricted to what the hon. member for Durban (North) embodied in his amendment. It is in point of fact a reference to a marriage which may take place under the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and I should just like to outline the various possibilities so as to indicate to the hon. member that in my humble submission this amendment is not necessary. We find cases where a person is not classified as a Coloured because he is not classified at all. Let us now assume that a man is classified as a white whereas the woman has no classification. She may or she may not be a Coloured. They get married in terms of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. In that case the new section 5 (5) will not apply at all. The section does not come into operation at all because it can only come into operation if both parents have already been classified. Let us now say for the sake of argument that the woman is classified as a Coloured and that she subsequently marries a man who is classified as a white. In my submission that marriage will be in conflict with section 1 (1) of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949, which reads as follows—

—and this is what the hon. member for Durban (North) really had in mind—

—but the difficulty lies in what follows—

In other words, here is a person who is classified as a Coloured and the marriage is invalid because she purposefully made a false statement that she mixes with Whites and is not a Coloured. The marriage is nevertheless solemnized. That marriage, however, can be made invalid. Now it is true that the children born from that marriage are legitimate children.

That is what the Act says. The Act says that the children born of such a putative marriage will be legitimate.

The Act says that they will be legitimate children.

But that is what I say. I say that the Act says that. That, however, does not alter the fact that the woman falsely professed to be a white whereas she is in fact a non-white.

If she did it falsely then it is not a lawful marriage and my amendment does not apply.

Then that is in fact so. If she is classified as a Coloured the position can never arise that she can profess to be a white without doing so falsely. She is in fact classified as a Coloured. Here we are dealing with classification. We are dealing with an amendment to the Population Registration Act; consequently I say that this amendment is not relevant.

The amendment refers to “lawfully married”.

But that is the point: How can the marriage be lawful if the person is classified as a Coloured?

But it happens every day.

It does not happen in respect of people who are classified as Coloureds because then such marriages are not lawful.

So you say that the chief magistrate of Durban has been wrong every time he has married people like that?

I do not say that the chief magistrate was wrong—I am speaking of this measure. My point is that if a person is classified as laid down in the new section 5 (5), such a person cannot marry a white person before the chief magistrate of Durban or any other chief magistrate without falsely professing to be white. If such a false profession is made, such a marriage is unlawful in terms of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and if it is an unlawful marriage the hon. member’s amendment falls away. That is the whole point.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member for Prinshof that he has missed the whole point of the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North). I want to deal with the one instance which the hon. member has given, namely that of a South African man classified as white marrying a girl who is not yet classified, an unclassified girl. That marriage can very easily take place outside the borders of South Africa.

It happens inside the country as well.

I am going to take a case occurring outside the borders. Take the case, as has happened, of a girl who has been in the service of the State overseas for years. She has not been classified, and she returns to South Africa.

Order! We are dealing with a marriage in the Republic. We are not concerned with marriages outside the Republic. We are only concerned with lawfully married people inside the Republic.

I will then confine myself to such a marriage taking place within the Republic. A marriage can easily happen in that way. For some reason that woman may well for years have lived and been accepted as a white person. We know of such cases frequently. A girl comes out of an orphanage or a place of that nature and goes to live in an area not knowing her parents or her ancestry. Suddenly she is found technically to be a Coloured person because of the application of this new section 5 (4). She is found to be Coloured because it is discovered that one of her parents was classified as a Coloured person. Immediately that woman must then be classified for population registration purposes as a Coloured and the child that is born of that marriage must be classified as Coloured. Although appearance, acceptance and all the other factors mentioned in section 1 are satisfied by her and she is accepted as a white person, and in addition the marriage is thus legal, the mere fact that it is discovered that one of her parents was classified as Coloured brings tragedy upon the family. I want to go further. What is the position regarding marriages prior to 1950, the date on which the Act came into force? What is the effect upon children of marriages that took place prior to 1950 when there was not even an inquiry into ancestry, when “mixed” might have meant Scotch and English or Coloured and some other race? There was no inquiry into ancestry. What is the position of those children if section 5 (5) is to apply? Sir, I have no argument with the hon. the Minister at all, or shall I say that my argument would be very much weaker if there were to be any right of appeal or any recourse against the operation of section 5 (5), but section 5 (5) is imperative; the hon. member for Prinshof is quite correct; it does not raise a presumption; it states a fact as to how classification shall be applied to circumstances which fall within that clause. Sir, the hon. the Minister was not prepared to accept an earlier amendment, but I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Justice will agree that there is justification for the proviso which the hon. member for Durban (North) seeks to insert. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us the benefit of his views, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will agree to accept this amendment.

I should like hon. members opposite to understand the position as clearly as hon. members on this side do. The amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North) reads—

The hon. member for Prinshof has already dealt with one aspect of the matter and I wholeheartedly agree with what he said. The problem which hon. members opposite see in regard to the provision in the Act as it stands, is that it is going to affect the children of people who were unclassified at the time they entered into a lawful marriage and who were subsequently classified but not as being members of the same race group. But I maintain that persons have been classified at birth since 1951. Every person must be classified when such person reaches the age of 16 years. On another occasion I have mentioned here how many people in our country have already been classified. I maintain that the vast majority of people have already been issued with their identity cards and are aware of their classifications. Some do not care and for the sake of convenience they do not want to know what their classifications are. But the fact of the matter is that every person over the age of 16 years ought to have knowledge of that. The argument has been advanced here that I am to accept the Opposition’s amendment because the children of parents who have not been classified as being members of the same race group will suffer a great deal of sorrow because they would allegedly be classified incorrectly. I simply cannot understand how something like that can happen even under the Act in its present form, and most definitely not how that can happen under the Act as it is now being amended. How many people under the age of 16 years get married? A girl under 16 years of age and a boy under 18 years of age, even if they have their parents’ consent to get married, have to obtain ministerial approval. In other words, marriages between such youthful persons will only be allowed under the most exceptional circumstances; as a matter of fact, such marriages are virtually made impossible.

The examples which have been mentioned here are actually hypothetical ones. But there are cases of people who have been classified and who have had the opportunity of objecting to their classifications but who have not done so. There are people whose failure to object to their classifications has been condoned by the Minister for sound reasons advanced by them and who have been given the opportunity of appealing to the board but who have not done so. Those people do not care; they are satisfied with their classifications and are satisfied to be accepted as being members of the race group in which they have been classified, but such a person may then want to marry a member of another race group. I can realize full well that the task of marriage officer is a difficult one under certain circumstances and I do not want to bring charges against marriage officers; they have to deal with difficult cases, such as the one mentioned here by the hon. member for Durban (North) to which I have given my serious attention.

In that particular case an admission has been made that neither the person herself nor her brothers or her sisters have ever been accepted as being anything but Coloureds; there has been evidence that in the vicinity where she grew up she has never been accepted as a White by white and non-white families who knew her and her family. That is the background of that case. The marriage officer solemnized a marriage between her and a white man, in conflict with her classification and in conflict with this admission. The woman in question did not lie to the marriage officer; she did not act falsely and he decided in his wisdom, on the basis of her association and on the basis of what she told him, to solemnize the marriage. Possibly he did not go into the matter too deeply. I have refused that woman, who is married to a White, to be reclassified. On the basis of a very thorough investigation I could not bring myself to do so, however much I might have wanted to do so. Those two people and the marriage officer will have it on their consciences that the children are some day going to be non-Whites; they must not want to blame me for that. The question is whether the marriage laws should be amended in such a way so as to eliminate this type of case. This marriage was solemnized in terms of the existing Act in its present form.

I think the possibility of such a case will virtually be eliminated completely under the new Act and that henceforth we are not going to get a case of this nature, because, as the hon. member for Prinshof said, if one does find such a case henceforth one of the two parties has lied, and if a marriage officer ignores an identity card which has been issued in accordance with the classification, he will be committing an offence. That is my interpretation of the Act and consequently I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

According to the hon. the Minister’s argument he wants it both ways. I support this amendment for two reasons. First of all, if the hon. the Minister does not accept it, all those arguments which he has put forward now about reviewing things and applying certain conditions, fall away because he has not got the right to do it. That is the first point that he has made so obvious. He cannot help one of these people, he cannot consider on its merits one of these cases that he has talked about, unless he first accepts this amendment, because he is precluded from doing so by the provisions of the clause which we seek to amend.

I

was referring to the law as it stands; I mentioned that as an example.

It is no good the hon. the Minister arguing like this, he must first listen to my argument. Unless he accepts this amendment, he can argue until he is blue in the face, but he cannot do one of these big gracious things that he talks about. The second reason why I support this amendment is that every provision of this Bill is retrospective to 1950. Sir, we are not talking now in 1967; we are talking in 1950 when there was no population registration classification whatsoever; the original legislation had not yet been passed, and the hon. the Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot have retrospectivity to a date when there was no classification and yet consider the position in this light of what has happened in the 17 years since then; it just cannot work that way, because he is now applying conditions to people, with effect from 1950, which did not exist in 1950. They did not exist then neither did they exist before that date. These people contracted marriages according to the laws of the country.

All of us sitting in this House know of cases where white men married Bantu, and they were allowed to do so and they had children. It was only later on that this type of legislation was introduced. Sir, what is the hon. the Minister going to do if he does not accept this amendment? What is he going to do with all the pre-1950 cases when, according to his predecessor’s acknowledgment, records, in many cases, were not kept of births, marriages and that kind of thing? The information was sort of dragged out of the air; the record was compiled from odd pieces of information contributed by certain persons. The hon. the Minister cannot base his argument on those things; they did not exist at that time. If the hon. the Minister does not accept this amendment he has to apply the 1967 law to all those people who married after 1950 in terms of the law and who had children in terms of the laws which existed from 1950 onwards. There is no sense in making all sorts of excuses and expressing all these big-hearted thoughts as the hon. the Minister has done. He must accept this amendment otherwise he cannot make this measure work without inflicting hardship upon people.

Amendment put and the House divided:

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

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

Question put: That the Bill, as amended, be adopted.

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers, J. E. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

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

Question affirmed and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

I want to move the only amendment I believe possible to a Bill of this nature, a Bill which we believe, and we have argued these points well, will further divide families and will have the inevitable effect of moving people now classified and accepted as White, to the Coloured group, a Bill which we believe in addition will worsen not only our relations within the Republic of South Africa, but also our relationship with the outside world. Mr. Speaker, I move—

If ever a Bill, as short as this one, deserved this amendment, I believe it is the Bill before us at the moment. This hon. Minister obviously believes that he will be able with the Bill and its amendments to draw a thick black dividing line between the various race groups in South Africa, where better men have failed. Let me tell him immediately that this Bill will not do that job. The provisions which he has placed in this amending Bill will not do what he believes they will do. He believes that if he can once achieve the object with these amendments of saying, “you are White, you are Coloured and you are Bantu”, without any doubt he can send us each to our own little compartment or “stan” and then his troubles will be over. But of course he will not be able to do this because he will be faced with exactly the same problems as his predecessors have been faced with and he will be faced with exactly the same problems as he is faced with under the existing legislation. In my opinion, and arising from the discussion here, this Bill is designed firstly to deal with certain adverse judgments which this hon. Minister has suffered under recent court decisions. Firstly, his subdivision of the Coloured group into seven different groups has been ruled out completely by the court. Obviously the hon. the Minister has to re-establish this. He is doing this and he is doing it retrospectively to 1950 but in what one could almost call a hamhanded manner, whereas he needs retrospective power in regard to this particular aspect of the legislation, he has applied it to the whole Bill. I believe that in doing that he has put a rod in pickle for himself which he will regret in the not too distant future. Secondly he has removed the right of third parties to appeal to the courts. I stress the word “courts” because he has opened the door for those third parties to come via the back door to the Secretary. Those third parties can appeal not only in favour of the person classified or seeking reclassification, but they can report adversely without coming out into the open. I believe that in this particular aspect of the legislation the hon. the Minister has done a very bad thing. He has started something which must in certain cases result in what we believe will be a witch hunt. Thirdly, I think he has possibly introduced these amendments at the request of his officials. I would hate to be an official administering this particular Bill and the legislation which has preceded it because there must come a time when it must be a very great strain, to say the least, for any official to have to determine whether a person is in fact White or Coloured or falls into any other racial group. Sir. we have had evidence of this in Durban. I can appreciate that the officials might well have come to the hon. the Minister to point out that unless he could place a description upon people which would enable them to say that a person was, in fact, White without any doubt, or non-White without any doubt, they would not be very keen on administering the legislation. The case in Durban is one to which I referred before— that of a young man who was charged with looking behind people’s ears, at their finger nails, in other words, applying the prescribed tests—could not take it any longer and as a result he blew his brains out. This might well result from the thinking of the officials in trying to apply this legislation. Because despite what the hon. the Minister is doing in clauses 1 and 2 he is still trying to define the undefinable. One cannot define a person as Coloured and a union between White and Coloured as producing Coloured children unless the Minister has the courage, let me say, to say a person will be a Coloured person if he has X per cent Coloured blood in him. This argument has been brought up through the ages. When is a person in fact Coloured and when is he not? Who can determine that?There are no hard and fast rules in dealing with people—they are not figures, but people. What makes us White? How much Coloured blood do I have? I may have some—I do not know, nor can anyone else sitting here or elsewhere say that he or she has none. But we seem to attach so much importance to this— to such an extent that we are getting a little bit distorted in our views and in our approach. The Minister in his endeavour to make this legislation absolutely watertight, so that nobody will escape the wishes and the designs of this hon. Minister, has introduced descent and is going to apply it in a way in which it has never been applied before—in fact, the manner in which he is going to apply it is a manner in respect of which the Minister’s predecessor gave this country and the people affected the undertaking that it would never be applied. He gave the undertaking that descent would never, ever be investigated except in relation to a Bantu person, and never in relation to a white person. But this is going to happen now. Even the descent of people who are classified as White is going to be investigated. So much for the undertaking of the hon. the Minister’s predecessor. But now this hon. Minister wants us to accept his undertaking, an undertaking to the effect that he will not reclassify certain people affected by this legislation. How can we take his word for it? How can we take his word in this respect when he already has broken the word of his predecessor?

But let us go further. By this legislation the hon. the Minister is also destroying the 1962 definition of a “white” person, because the definition of a “white” person is now so circumscribed by presumptions that he even had to introduce by means of clause 2 a little subsection into the Act saying that a person must be classified “White” if both his parents are “White”. Why does he have to do that? Because this legislation has now become so complicated that there is the danger that even such a person could be classified as a non-White if all the prescribed conditions are taken cognizance of. The Minister even went so far as to remove from the law the provision that a person who in appearance is White, a person who is obviously White, can be assumed to be White. Even such a person can no longer in terms of this Bill be assumed to be White. He has to prove that he is. The Minister, in fact, is getting into such a mess with this that I do hope he will be able extricate himself from it. However, I am not so much concerned about whether he will be able to do that; I am much more concerned about his not going, with this legislation, to ruin the lives of an untold and unknown number of people. But in addition to all this, he obviously does not trust our courts because of the way in which they have been administering this Act up to now. So he is now removing from our courts the right to investigate any case which comes before them. Why is he doing this? The Minister himself has told us—because the courts in their investigations might find facts which were not at the disposal of the board or the Secretary, facts which, had the board or the Secretary known, might have induced them to come to a totally different decision.

That is what he said. So he is not going to allow the courts to investigate any more. Is he trying to decide whether people are white or non-white on the facts and the truth, or according to how he wants it? Because this is what the legislation is going to do if he applies it as it is written. It is going to mean —and he said so himself—that more of the board’s and the Secretary’s decisions will be final, and the court will not have to interfere. This is what he said. In other words, our courts are not going to investigate these matters any more. They have to accept the evidence which is placed before them by the Secretary, or whoever is delegated by this Minister to do so. They cannot investigate the circumstances and they cannot call for new evidence. In other words their hands are tied, because they will have to judge on the evidence which is placed before them by the board or the Secretary; in other words, by the Minister. So, what does the right of appeal to a court of law mean any more? It means absolutely nothing at all. In other words, a person who is a borderline case and is likely to be caught up in the swirl of this legislation, is now entirely, in my opinion, at the mercy of this hon. Minister and those persons who have set out to classify him in the first place, because his right of appeal is of no use to him whatsoever.

Let us deal shortly with the question of retrospectivity. During the passage of this legislation through this House, we have had numerous examples of how the retrospectivity which this hon. Minister is applying throughout every clause of this Bill, is going to adversely affect people. All of those people who have been classified and who are about to be classified are going to be brought back into the turmoil of reclassification and classification under a set of circumstances to which they should never have been subjected. Certain new factors have been introduced here, such as information supplied at the registration of birth, not of a birth to-morrow, after everybody has knowledge of this legislation, but of a birth registered at any time since 1950. That information will now be available to this Minister to help him or the board—when I talk of the Minister, I mean the board and the Secretary —decide how that person in his opinion should be classified. We have argued throughout the course of the discussion on this Bill about the source of the information, under sections 3 and 9, plus this new provision as to the information for registration of a birth under clause 3 of the Bill. Where does it come from? We have shown this Minister, without any doubt at all, that much of that information can come from a person other than the person affected. We have shown in the case of the registration of a birth that that birth can be registered by a third person. It can be registered by a midwife, who has a look at the parents, and says she thinks they are Coloured. She registeres that birth and that can be held against that person. This is going back to 1950.

One of the happenings in South Africa in the past, was, according to this Minister’s predecessor in 1962, that up to 1915, I think he said it was, information in many cases had never been kept, and in other cases had been kept very badly. This is being made retrospective till 1950, so that all people from the beginning of this legislation and before it, can be classified on information given at their birth. They can also, as we know, be classified on information given by a guardian. We have pointed out to this hon. Minister who a guardian could be. It could be the matron of an orphanage, or somebody of that nature, who can give that information. This is the type of information which is going to be used by the Minister, his boards and his Secretary for the classification of people. It means that a person can stand by and have all of these things happen to him without having opened his mouth or having given any evidence on his own behalf. We think that that is very wrong indeed.

I want to mention quickly the question of objections provided for in clause 4 of this Bill. There are many objections at this moment waiting to be heard. I must give the Department full marks, because I believe they are bringing them before the courts as quickly as they can. But this hon. Minister refused an amendment from this side of the House in the Committee Stage, which sought to say that all of those objections which we believe were before the courts, because notice had been given to the courts that they were waiting to be heard, should be heard under the conditions of the existing legislation. But this hon. Minister turned that down. And in turning it down, what has he done? He has taken away completely the right of people who, when they lodged their objections, had a right to do so, but now they have not. The reason for this is quite simple, because, with its retrospectivity —and that applies to every aspect of this Bill; this is where I think the Minister is wrong— they have one year, and no longer, from the date on which their classifications became known to them. Even the Minister has no discretion to give them a longer period. Perhaps he does not trust himself. Now, that automatically wipes out every third party appeal which has already been lodged, because they have in fact gone over their time. Their cases were brought to the notice of the courts by way of a third party objection. Obviously, the period of one year in almost every case, must have lapsed, not only in that period, but during the period that they have been waiting to come before the courts. So, if you apply the conditions of this provision I am quite sure that there is not one person who has an objection at the moment, who will fall within the time limit laid down by this new Bill. I think that is a provision that this Minister could have lightened. He could have done so by making the exceptions we ask for. It would have made no difference to the future application of this Bill. As he has gone back as far as 1950 to apply all the provisions of this Bill, I think that he should have been prepared to have numerous amendments and exceptions provided for in the legislation, not by way of word of mouth across the floor of this House, but somewhere where it in fact means something to the persons affected.

I mentioned, too, that in clause 6 the Minister actually removes the presumption that a person who was white should be accepted as white. I think this is the final folly of this Bill, namely that a person walking down Adderley Street, or any other street shall be accepted as white until in fact it is proved that he is white. There is no presumption. I cannot assume to-day, neither can the boards, the Secretary or the Minister presume in fact that a white person is white, unless he produces evidence to that effect. In other words, what is going to happen is that in our association, one with the other, the ability to recognize people as belonging to your own group is being made more and more difficult. What is going to happen if this hon. Minister comes back to us for amendments because somebody is, “climbing through the fence”, as the hon. member for Prinshof said and repeated time and time again? Where is the end of all this going to be? How is it going to end? How is this going to be applied to the lives of people? They are going to be classified and reclassified. Unless they can get themselves classified by a board or a court they are going to be classified time and time again if new factors come to the attention, or are brought to the attention, of the Secretary.

I know that the Minister can say that is illogical and he will never do that. I hope he will not—indeed, I do not believe he will. But this is what the Bill says can happen. The Minister has said that it is absurd and he will never do that. He has told us that not once, but many times during the course of the passage of this Bill through this House. We have asked him to implement that undertaking by amending the relevant clause but the Minister has refused time and time again to do it. So the Minister must not be cross because we suspect his intentions, or appear to do so. Because, Sir, we have learned the hard way, in the application of this legislation, that unless something is in the Bill, it is not observed. It is as simple as that. We on this side of the House completely and utterly reject this amending Bill.

Sir, I wish to record my final objection to the passing of this Bill. In the Second Reading I made it perfectly clear that I regarded this measure as a wholly unnecessary one and one that can only add to the misery of many of the citizens of this country. Nothing which has happened during the long passage of this Bill has caused me to change my mind. On the contrary, the various instances mentioned during the course of the Second Reading and Committee Stages of this Bill, support the view which I expressed at the time of the Second Reading, that the human tragedies which race classification in South Africa has brought about, are already so serious that it is most unwise to add to them. I feel that this Bill can only have the effect of adding to these human tragedies, let alone ameliorating them. It has already been stated—and I wish to emphasize this—that this measure contains a number of provisions and principles which are wholly repugnant to our legal traditions in this country.

One of my main objections to this measure is that it departs radically from the avowed intentions of the original Act. This measure will have the effect of making race classification irrevocable and permanent, based on a new line of approach, wholly inconsistent with the assurances given to us at the time of the passing of the original Act, and the subsequent amendments thereto. This Bill will have the effect in my view of totally disregarding the status of people who might originally have been the product of mixed marriages, but who had over the years been accepted as white people in South Africa.

Apart from the descent factor, the Bill lays down rigid rules on how appearance and general acceptance are to be determined. This to my mind is a radical departure from the original Act. We have been assured over the years by members of the Government that in matters of race classification the community itself was to be the judge. We were assured that the Government did not intend to investigate a person’s descent or to delve too deeply into that aspect. This measure is a complete reversal of those assurances. The effect of this Bill is that a person’s race classification will be fixed rigidly for all time. There have been to my knowledge many instances of persons —and I quoted some during the course of the Second Reading Debate—the undoubted products of mixed marriages, who have changed their environments and who have been accepted by the community and society generally as white persons. In terms of this measure these people are in grave danger now of being classified as Coloureds. In terms of this Bill any admission made for the purposes of the 1951 census would be the means of pegging for all time a person’s race classification. To my mind grave consequences may flow from this position. It would have the effect that the race classification of the individual contained in that census return, whether made wittingly or unwittingly by himself, would remain rigid and permanent and would for all time peg that person’s race classification, despite the fact that public opinion has accepted that individual as a white person. It is true that the Minister’s amendment that one’s descent would only be used in registration evidence if the admission was made personally by the individual concerned for the purpose of race classification, to a certain extent has softened the original intention of the Bill, but notwithstanding that, I still regard this feature as a most undesirable one, and one which is likely to cause a great deal of unnecessary hardship and unnecessary bitterness.

A further provision in the Bill stipulates that if either of the parents of an individual has been classified as a Coloured person, he too must be classified as a Coloured. This, to my mind, is also a most unfortunate provision. This will have the effect again of fixing the race classification of an individual for all time despite the fact that he may, over the years, have removed himself entirely from all association with Coloured people, from his original environment, and despite the fact that he may now have been generally accepted by society as a white person. This is surely not a humanitarian way of dealing with a case of a person who has, over the years, severed himself completely from all association with Coloured people, and who has been generally accepted as a white person by the community? Is it fair that such a person should be confronted with the hardships and frustrations of being classified as a Coloured person merely because in the dim and distant past one of his parents may have been classified as a Coloured person? Is it fair that such an individual, who has gone beyond the stage of being accepted by society as a Coloured person, an individual who has been accepted by society as a white person, should be relegated to second rate status in his own country, a status which, in terms of this Bill, will now remain a permanency? Surely it was never intended that in the compilation of our population register we should forsake compassion? Surely it was never intended that we should completely ignore the humanities involved in the race classification of our people?

Another feature of this Bill which to my mind is most objectionable, is the one that gives retrospective effect to this Bill. To my mind this is a feature which is repugnant to legal tradition in this country. I feel that this is a grossly unfair provision which will unduly prejudice a large number of people, including those whose appeals are presently pending. These appellants have already incurred great expense—they have sought legal advice, engaged attorneys, advocates, and arranged for the documentation of their cases and for their witnesses, and generally have done everything necessary in connection with their appeals. It must be remembered that all this work was done on the basis of the law as it then existed. Their entire approach to these appeals, all their submissions have been in accordance with the law as it then existed, i.e. prior to the introduction of this Bill. They are now being confronted with retrospective legislation in terms of this Bill. The provisions of this Bill will now be brought into operation in the consideration of their appeals. Surely this is grossly unfair? One would have thought that at least the Government would be prepared to exclude those appeals now pending from the retrospective effect of this Bill. That is the least one could have expected in all fairness. Generally the legal position in this country has been that legislation is not made retrospective if by so doing people are placed at a disadvantage. We have always adopted a human approach to matters of this sort. We have regarded retrospective legislation as being justified only when it confers rights and advantages but not when it imposes disadvantages. Under this Bill legal principles and rights which people have under the existing law will now be denied to them. In view of the hon. the Minister’s refusal to allow all pending appeals to be considered under the existing law I feel that he is inflicting unnecessary penalties upon these unfortunate appellants. I suggest that this is another instance justifying the contention that the proposals in this Bill are devoid of compassion. This is another instance which justifies the contention that this Bill disregards the human feelings of the unfortunate people who are now involved in race classifications in their own country. For these reasons I feel that I would be failing in my duty if I did not record my vote against the passing of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief indeed. Most of the arguments against this Bill have been advanced at considerable length at the Second Reading, during the Committee Stage and in the Report Stage and there is very little that one can add at this juncture. Sir, the original measure which this Bill amends has been described as one of the corner stones of apartheid. Well, apartheid, or separate development, has many corner stones, and most of them are dangerous corner stones. The reason for the introduction of this amending Bill is that this corner stone is apparently getting a little worn around the edges.

It is crumbling.

It is becoming a little shaky in its foundations. I can see why this is the corner stone of apartheid. If you have laws which are based on race, where people’s rights and obligations are decided by race and colour, it is obvious that every single individual in the country has to be classified in terms of race and colour, and therefore it is clear that this is indeed one of the foundations upon which the whole structure of apartheid rests.

What about the Senate Plan of the Progressive Party?

T will come to that; I am glad the hon. member has mentioned it.

I have no objection to classifications if they are to be used as a protective measure, if classification is to be used in order to prevent one racial group in a multi-racial country from dominating another racial group, but it is an entirely different thing when race classification is used only to ensure that one may not improve one’s status in life above the general status enjoyed by the racial group to which one belongs.

So you admit that your party also needs race classification?

I have no objection to that. In America, as has been pointed out, people are classified for census purposes in terms of race or colour; that is done in America, otherwise how would one know that there are 20 million Negroes in America, unless there was some form of classification. But, Sir, this is not done for the purpose of discrimination; that is the difference. It is one thing to keep a racial register for statistical purposes, or in order to protect people against domination by other racial groups in a multi-racial country, but it is quite another thing to keep a register, as we do in this country, in order to circumscribe the rights that people may enjoy. That is precisely how this register is used. It is used in order to prevent people from taking certain jobs, from living in certain areas, from enjoying mobility and from exercising the franchise. These are the things for which our population register is used. That is not so in the United States of America where people are classified as Negroes.

There are certain jobs in the United States which are not open to Negroes.

But it is not circumscribed by law; that is the difference.

Do you suggest that Negroes in the United States live wherever they like?

I am not saying that there is no racial prejudice in a country like America. Of course there is racial prejudice. There is racial prejudice in Britain to-day, with a population of one million non-white people, but in every case the laws are directed at removing discrimination, and making discrimination unlawful. In this country, however, our laws are designed to entrench discrimination. That is the difference between having the sort of register that is kept in America and the population register in this country. There is a difference between having some form of classification for the Senate Plan of the Progressive Party and a population register which is kept in order to discriminate against people.

What about your residential plan? It is pure discrimination.

That is a voluntary thing. I cannot go too deeply into this argument; I simply want to draw the distinction between the keeping of registers for discriminatory purposes and the keeping of racial registers for statistical purposes or in order to protect people against domination. Voluntary residential segregation is quite different from compulsory segregation.

But you discriminate.

It would be invalid, in terms of the Bill of Rights which my party proposes, if one discriminated on racial grounds. Sir, perhaps the most significant thing that has come out of this whole debate has been the hon. the Minister’s involuntary admission that there are things known as “higher” and “lower” classifications. This is what interested me. It was a purely involuntary admission made by the hon. the Minister in the course of this debate. Up till now we have been asked by hon. members opposite, “What is wrong with being classified as a Coloured person if you are Coloured?” because, they say, one should be proud to be a Coloured person.

You were the people who talked about higher and lower classifications.

No, I did not use those words. The hon. the Minister used these words quite involuntarily. [Interjections.] No, it is discriminatory because in terms of other laws people who are white are allowed to do many things which people who are Coloureds or Africans may not do, things such as taking jobs, living where they like and exercising the vote. But the hon. the Minister talked about people who were classified “too high or too low”. What does he mean by that? He means exactly what I meant and that is that in terms of our laws if you are a person of colour you are of a lower level in the eyes of the law because you may not enjoy all the advantages which you would enjoy if you were classified as a white person. This is an example of the rigid classification of society in South Africa, a classification which is going to become even more rigid as a result of the passing of this Bill. Hitherto there has been some flexibility in classification; there has been an opening for people to appeal against existing classifications, and it is simply because the Minister and his officials have become exasperated with the course of these reclassifications that this amending Bill has been introduced at all; that is the only reason. It does not affect the vast majority of people in the country who were classified years ago. They were classified as soon as the Population Registration Act was passed, and every year since then hundreds of thousands of people have been classified. This measure only affects young people coming on to the register for the first time, and people appealing. There is going to be no flexibility as far as they are concerned. They are going to be classified forever according to the classification of their parents, and in each case they take—I use the Minister’s words—the lower classification, not the higher one. A child born of a marriage between a Coloured person and a white person, or a child born of a union which has not been sanctified by marriage, between a Coloured person and a white person, invariably goes down the rung of the ladder to the lower classification. That applies equally to a child born of a union between a white person and a Bantu. Invariably the classification is downwards; the child is classified as Coloured. In future therefore there is to be no flexibility in race classifications. If there is any doubt, the person concerned is not going to be given the benefit of the doubt as he could be in the past. No person is given the benefit of the doubt any more; that has gone by the board; the child invariably goes down the rung of the social ladder in South Africa. Therefore, as I say, this has made the whole structure of society in South Africa on a colour level more inflexible than it has ever been before. Any doubt cast by the courts in regard to the validity of ethnic grouping is out now. That has now been validated. Any doubts which have been cast before by the use of further criteria are out now. Other criteria may now be used as well. I say the situation—instead of being made more in keeping with the trend of the twentieth century, which is away from colour discrimination in most Western countries—the direction we take is directly the opposite.

And towards integration.

No, I want society to find its own level. It has worked very well in this country for many years and there is no reason why it could not have gone on. We do not need laws like this and it should not be necessary for us to have such laws. For all these reasons I intend to vote for the amendment.

The three hon. members who have just spoken have now given us their views of what their party or group considers the effect of this legislation is going to be. In all those speeches nothing was said which has not been refuted adequately from this side of the House in previous stages of the Bill. That is why I do not want to tackle each one of these statements categorically again and refute them. I want to try and put forward a positive view and describe the way in which this side of the House views the implementation of this legislation, and in the course of my speech I will of course deal with some of the arguments which the hon. members used.

This Bill, as it has now been amended, lays down certain new guiding lines for the classification and reclassification of persons. It will, in my opinion, simplify and facilitate for the Secretary and the boards and courts the practical application of this legislation to a considerable extent. That does not mean to say that we will have no problems in future. We expect problems, we have always expected them. But by means of this legislation an honest attempt is now being made to make the legislation more effective and more streamlined for the purpose for which it was introduced. I say that it will work better in practice because decisive criterions are being laid down in accordance with which a person’s race will in future be determined and which will lead to much more effective and more realistic judgments. The existing legislation has in recent times given rise to nonsensical, ridiculous and arbitrary judgments. The new legislation guards against that. I want to quote an example to support my statement. I want to state that this legislation will prevent what has now happened in a case where a father and a mother were classified as White and three of their children were from the outset classified as White while two of the sons were subsequently reclassified as Whites. Originally they had been classified as Coloureds, but because they were light in appearance, they were reclassified as Whites, but the seventh child in the family, because he was a little darker in appearance, could not succeed in being reclassified as a White. Do you see what nonsensical judgments the courts have recently been forced to give in terms of the present legislation? The parents of the children were classified as White, and six of the children as well, but one of the sons, because he was dark in appearance, was classified as a Coloured. The hon. member for Peninsula, and others, spoke here about “hardships” and suffering. We are now laying down a simple criterion, in clause 5 (5), in terms of which in this case, that child, although dark in colour, would have had to be classified into the same category as that of the parents. I do not think that hon. members on the opposite side can have any difference of opinion in regard to the matter. Langenhoven said years ago that if a cat had kittens in an oven, they were still kittens and not loaves of bread. Two white people cannot have a Coloured child.

I maintain that this Bill will improve the position considerably. The concept of appearance is defined in the Act. This will prevent two Judges, for example, having to inspect somebody in the middle of the court case like a show donkey to determine there whether the person is obviously white in appearance or not. This legislation will no longer tolerate a situation like that. All of us who had anything to do with these borderline cases know that to determine whether a person is obviously white cannot be done in such an arbitrary way, i.e. by having two Judges inspect a person in court from all sides and state that they are determining on the basis of that person’s appearance whether he is white or not, because any other two persons may arrive at a different conclusion.

Another amendment which is being introduced in this legislation is an essential addition to the concept of acceptance. It would appear that, as in the past, a person or a third party can go to the board with certain witnesses to prove acceptance, and if they do not succeed in that, they can go on appeal to the court and come forward there with brand new evidence in order to achieve the same ends. I say that these anomalies will in future be eliminated, because it takes little skill and effort to-day to find enough witnesses who are prepared, with or without compensation, to come forward and testify that somebody is accepted as a white person. It will be possible with this legislation to prevent and eliminate to a large extent the abuses which there obviously were under the existing legislation.

As far as the powers of the Secretary are concerned, this legislation is still giving the Secretary the power to classify and to reclassify. All that he is being prevented from doing is to reverse the classification once it has been made by the board or, for the information of the hon. member for Musgrave, who argued this point for such a long time, when the court has given a decision which is deemed to be a decision of the board. In these cases the Secretary is tied down. But the Secretary and his Department are to a large extent being protected and indemnified by this new legislation from the unpleasantness and the criticism which follows on the implementation of their difficult and often unpleasant task. He will in future only have to classify the obvious cases, and he can refer the other difficult cases to the board. He did not have those powers in the past. The Secretary is obtaining these powers under this legislation. It is necessary that the Department should not bring down all this criticism and unpleasantness upon itself, and that it should rather go to a board which is equipped to deal properly with investigations, which is competent to investigate these cases in the finest detail, and which is under the chairmanship of a person with legal knowledge, a retired Judge or magistrate. who can see to it that justice is administered, whereas the Secretary is simply an administrative person and will only have to deal with the obvious cases. The Secretary still has the right, which he also had in the past, to undertake reclassifications, a right in regard to which so many hon. members have argued, implying that it was a new power which the Secretary was obtaining. I have said that his power to undertake reclassification is being limited in this respect in that he may not in future reverse cases which have already been dealt with by the board. What is more, the Secretary need not in future pay any heed to or allow himself to be influenced by third party objections. It was different in the past. A third party which introduced a case for classification with the Secretary was entitled, if he was not satisfied that the Secretary was taking action, to take it to the board or the court. In future the Secretary need not concern himself about third party objections and need not let himself be influenced by them.

With the abolition of third party objections, to which so much objection was made here, the new legislation envisages three objects. In the first instance it will eliminate the so-called witch-hunts because, with the provisions of the amended Act where the classification of the parents has to be adhered to when classifying the children, it would have been possible in terms of third party objections to start a witch-hunt under the present legislation, but third party objections have been done away with for precisely that reason. If that had remained, as the hon. members on the opposite site wanted, then witch-hunts could have taken place. The position now is that the Secretary need not take any notice of or react to third party objections, and for that reason witch hunts are not possible. The onus for reclassification lies only with the Secretary. He may receive information from a third party but only he will decide whether he will react to that information. An officer of the State in the position of the Secretary cannot, on his own initiative, start a witch-hunt. That is what the hon. members on the opposite side tried to make this House believe, i.e. that the Administration, under the direction of the Secretary, could, in terms of the powers which he would then have, start a witch-hunt. Under our democratic system and government it is simply impossible for an officer of the State to start a witch-hunt on his own initiative. The Secretary is the only person who can display any initiative in this case. There is no foundation to the Opposition’s objections to the effect that what is being envisaged here is to classify as Coloureds people who are Whites. I challenged them in a previous stage to mention a case like that which occurred during all the years the Secretary had the powers under subsection 4. In the countless thousands of cases which he handled there was not a single case where the Secretary abused these powers to have a person who was a white person classified as a Coloured. The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) made an attempt to prove one case, and it was not genuine because in the case which he mentioned the person had not been classified.

The person had been classified.

I am not prepared to go into that now, but the hon. member explained that the person had not been classified as a White. What we would also be achieving by the abolition of third party objections is that we would put a stop to the continual process of applications for reclassification, which would increase in momentum and which did increase recently and which were interminable. In the third place, what we would be achieving by the abolition of these third party objections is that abuses under the existing system would not be possible in future. The hon. member for Stellenbosch mentioned how abuses had taken place in terms of these provisions in that people accepted payment to give evidence and that people introduced third party objections for a remuneration. I want to contend myself by saying that this Act will prevent the aims of the legislator from being circumvented, but that on the other hand it leaves the door open for any person whose parents have not yet been classified to go to the Secretary or to the boards or to the highest court in this country to ask for the classification which he prefers. In terms of the provisions of the new section 5 (5) it does not deprive anybody of his right to go to court. It bars no one from going to any board or appeal court to seek justice there. That is why I say that the spectres which have been conjured up by hon. members here at the various stages have often served to make them ridiculous. In no case is there any proof that we can harm anybody with any provision of this legislation.

The hon. member for Umlazi began by giving reasons for the introduction of this Bill. He stated that in his opinion the only reason for this Bill being introduced was because the officials had asked for it. They could administer the Act in its present form and that is why they were asking for this amendment Bill. I want to put it this way: If the officials found that there were loopholes in the Act and if they recommended to the Minister that the Act should in fact be amended, what is wrong with that? It is the normal procedure. That is what happens under normal circumstances. A Department finds that an Act does not work in practice, and it follows naturally then that they recommend to the Minister that the Act should be amended. It is probably one of the reasons why this Bill has been introduced. But apart from the fact that officials may possibly have recommended the Bill, we ourselves could see what was happening in regard to court cases and newspaper reports. In this way a Minister subsequently realizes that there are certain deficiencies in the Act which have to be rectified.

The hon. member said that it was very difficult to classify races. He said that it was actually impossible, and he predicted that the hon. the Minister would need more amendments in future. That may also be true. Unfortunately it is the case that the hon. member’s party also needs race classification for the policy which it maintains it wants to follow, but even so that party has never, since 1950, helped us by putting forward any definition which according to them would be the correct definition for classifying the races. We find the same thing happening in regard to the hon. member for Houghton, who, to my amazement, actually admitted that according to their policy they will also have to make use of race classification. But neither does that hon. member tell us how she would define the various races. We will always have borderline cases which are very difficult to define. We admit that. That is why we have all these difficulties. However, hon. members on the opposite side merely criticize. They themselves admit that race classification is necessary in this country for their policy and for ours, but they offer no solution. They merely wait for us to draw up a definition and then they criticize that definition. That is all. It is very easy to adopt that attitude, but it gets us nowhere. Nor is it an attack on our principle. I may just state that principle as follows: The National Party has a mandate from the voters to govern the country on the basis of political and social separation. That is so, and in order to accomplish that we need race classification. Consequently we must do our best. That is where I differ from the hon. member for Peninsula. He maintains that we are introducing this amendment to prejudice people. That is an absolute untruth. We are trying to improve the Act and see to it that there is less injustice. That is the whole reason for our coming to this House. To continually be trying to impress upon the public in regard to each piece of legislation which we introduce here that this Government is a government of oppressors will avail the Opposition nothing. It happened again during this session with the Education Act, and now it is happening once more. Their approach is always to rouse suspicion against the Government and the National Party. Well, the facts and the practical implementation have proved that there is absolutely nothing behind it. The hon. member for Umlazi tried to make a strong point in regard to the abolition of objections on the part of third parties. It is true that objections by third parties will fall away now because this measure will be retrospective. But let us take note of the nature of those objections. In the first place these objections were made years after a person had already been classified, a classification with which the person in question was satisfied. Then these third parties came forward—I can call them the ultraliberal elements amongst our population—and found a loophole in the Act and saw in that the opportunity of dragging people before the Classification Board, and further, for reclassification, and they did so despite the fact that those people had perhaps been quite satisfied with their original classification.

How can you say that they were satisfied with their classification if they subsequently appealed?

But they did not appeal themselves—third parties did it for them. The classified person had had a year and longer in which to reconcile himself to his classification, but now, at the instance of a third party, he suddenly woke up and wanted to appeal.

It is our object with these amendments to afford relief to people by obtaining the correct classification. With that in mind, it is not only the individual himself who will be taken into consideration but also his family. We cannot do an injustice to a wife and six children by classifying the father incorrectly—we must take all the circumstances into account. As far as the definition of “white person” is concerned, it is provided in the Act, as it still is, that a person may be classified as a “white person” when he is obviously white in appearance. What was our intention when we provided that he should be obviously white in appearance? Surely we very definitely did not mean that a person should merely look like a white person. We also meant how that person appeared—that is to say, did he appear to be a white person or a non-white? Neither should we lose sight of the fact that we were not there to express an ostensible judgment, to judge casually. If a person is a Coloured, he must be classified as a Coloured. That was the intention. The intention was never to declare a person who was a Coloured, who really was a Coloured, as a white person—even though he did look like a white person.

If he is classified as white how can you say he is a Coloured?

I shall tell you in a moment. On the basis of court judgments it is clear that the courts have not been able to decide on appearance alone whether a person was white or Coloured. That was the insinuation. Courts always interpret an act literally— that is what went wrong. And because the courts did that, they had to form a judgment principally on the basis of a person’s features and colour. That was never the intention of Parliament.

Are you not reflecting on this House and on legislation?

Our intention was not clearly stated—that is all. Our intention was that if a person was really a Coloured, for example, he had to be classified as a Coloured. That is why we are now saying that apart from his appearance, his habits, speech, etc. must also be taken into consideration. What must also be taken into consideration is whether he passes for a white in the social circles in which he moves, in his place of employment, etc. That is to make certain whether he is really a white, or a Coloured person, whichever the case may be. That, therefore, is the purport of the amendment which is being introduced here. I cannot see any objection to that—in fact, I think it is an improvement. The right which is being granted the Secretary to undertake reclassification is one he always had. Therefore I need not touch upon it because it is a principle which has been contained in the Act since 1950.

The next important principle which is being introduced now is classification according to that of the parents. The hon. member for Hougton has stated, and quite rightly too, that when the original Act was passed in 1950 there had up to that time been no classification. Therefore it had not been possible to classify a person on the basis of the classification of his parents because his parents had not been previously classified. It was then laid down as a principle that if a person was obviously a white person and was accepted by the community as a white person then such a person would be classified as a white person. That was the principle which has held good for 17 years. But now all the older people have already been classified—all that remains therefore is the younger people. Really, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand how a person who is, for example, being classified as a Coloured, while his parents were also classified as such, can make any objection to that. Surely it is logical. What led to the Act reading as it does at present was a case which, as you all know, we had in the Transvaal where the child of parents who had been classified as white was, according to photo’s which I saw, obviously Coloured. That child was subsequently classified as a Coloured in accordance with the Act, as it still reads—in other words, on the basis of the principle that if a person is obviously a Coloured he must be classified as a Coloured. But what have we brought upon ourselvesby classifying a child in a different category from that of his parents? We have made ourselves to appear absolutely ridiculous—not only in the eyes of the world, but also in our own. After all, a child cannot be classified in a different category than the classification of his parents. We have been instructed by the voters to see to it that there is social separation, and how is the child going to be separated from his parents now? Consequently this amendment is to my way of thinking the logical result after the operation of this Act over the past 17 years.

The Opposition is kicking op a terrible din in regard to the removal of third party objections. I just want to place it on record again that the principle which allows third party objections was fought tooth and nail by the Opposition when the Act was originally introduced in 1950, and again in 1962. The gist of their argument was that the National Party was, on the basis of this provision, going to institute a witch-hunt. It was said that the geneological records of people, of the old families, would be checked to see whether there had not been a person who had, perhaps had Coloured blood in him. The usual suspicion was sown in the outside world, with the intention of saying to those people: “This is the kind of National Government we have. Look how unfair it is. They want to institute a witch-hunt and every person who may perhaps have a little non-white blood in them must be unearthed and their names brought into the open”. But what are the facts? The Act has been in operation now for 17 years and during that period there was not a single case in which a third party had complained to the Secretary that somebody who was in reality Coloured had been classified as a white. On the contrary the United Party supporters and the supporters of the hon. member for Houghton, made use of this provision to make objections—an ironic position, Mr. Speaker. To-day, now that we want to withdraw that provision, they are fighting against it. Truly, Mr. Speaker, it makes the whole matter ridiculous. Here we are complying with the wishes of the Opposition, for originally they opposed the provision which allowed third parties to make objections. But now that we realize that the removal of that provision from the Act would be an improvement, because we do not want to set any witch-hunt in motion, they are in turn objecting to that. Before I conclude I just want to point out that it is very difficult to judge a matter on is merits in this House if the Opposition is always intent, not on discussing the case on its merits, but on sowing suspicion against the Government and against its actions.

I shall now deal briefly with the right to appeal. As hon. members who have studied law probably know it is the procedure that a case is always thrashed out before the lower court. After that the case can go on appeal. It is always so and it appears that the Act in its original form had not been drawn up correctly. However, the Act has now been drawn up correctly. Justice is not done to a classification board if new evidence may subsequently be introduced in a higher court, evidence which the board did not have before it. The higher court then rejects the board’s decision without the board having had all the evidence before it. What we are doing now is to say that all the evidence must be brought before the classification board. There can be subsequent appeals and the court of appeal can then sift through all the evidence and arrive at a decision.

I am now coming to the end of my speech, and I want to emphasize that the hypothetical cases which the United Party quoted here, are cases of such a nature that in theory justice may not be done there. There is no doubt about that.

Not only theoretically. It also happens in practice.

Now there are very few Acts in respect of which that cannot happen, and where theoretically somebody cannot be done an injustice.

Not only theoretically. It also happens in practice.

What about all the court cases?

It is precisely in this respect that the Secretary has the power to reclassify. He has this power because we do not want to see injustice done. I want to conclude by saying that this is a matter which does have its human aspect, a matter which could in fact cause human suffering, but I think I am speaking on behalf of the entire hon. House when I say that it is practically an instruction from the House to the Secretary through the hon. the Minister to deal very sympathetically with any case which should come to his attention. I know that this request will not fall on deaf ears.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parow was quite frank with the House. He said that this Bill simplifies the position and the problems which face the Secretary, the Board, and the courts. Might I add that any legislation which aims at simplifying matters is very simple legislation both in concept and in drafting. What was significant about the speech of the hon. member for Parow was the fact that not one word was uttered by him in regard to the human lives that are affected by this legislation and the human suffering and tragedy which can arise as a result of this legislation. The hon. Member was, rather, obsessed with the idea that this measure was simplifying the task of classifying people by three different bodies.

I want to go further. The hon. member for Parow wanted to know how it was that he had not been given any cases of white persons who were classified incorrectly as Coloured. Perhaps he was not in the House when the Minister replied to a question of mine and perhaps he was not here when it was repeated during the debate. In the year 1966 there were 199 objections lodged with the Race Classification Appeal Board of which 70 were upheld and persons who had been classified Coloured were reclassified White. Yet the hon. member says he knows of no white persons who were classified Coloured.

All right: Mention the

case.

I have just told you that there were 108.

Those were Coloured people classified as White—that is different.

It suits the hon. member to say that these were Coloured people who had been classified White. But the hon. the Minister must then have been misleading me and the House—I do not say deliberately —when he said that he was quite satisfied that there had been no injustice done by any of the decisions of the courts or the appeal board.

You have quoted cases that have been classified from Coloured to White, not from White to Coloured.

I have mentioned this to the Minister and I will repeat it. What I said was this. I said that there were 108 persons who had been classified Coloured and when the law was applied to them—your law —all 108 of them were declared white people, people who should never have been classified Coloured.

Mention one case where the opposite happened.

There is not one case where a Coloured person on appeal has been reclassified.

On appeal, yes.

On appeal, yes. Let me just continue. The hon. member for Parow strongly supported the new concept in this Bill that the Secretary should have the say in cases of classification and reclassification and that third party objections should be done away with. Why were there 119 appeals? Because the Secretary had made 119 questionable decisions and in 108 instances the Secretary’s judgment was proved wrong by the classifications appeal board or by the Supreme Court. Now, the hon. member for Parow— whom I can forgive although not the hon. member for Omaruru—was supporting the idea that the Secretary who in the first instance has to do the classification will now also be the judge of his own case. He will now sit back and ask himself: “Did I do the right thing, or did I not?” He will judge himself— and he will have to ask himself the awkward question: “How many times did I have to change my mind?” He must be quite hesitant to do it, and quite naturally, for he is but a human being. But hon. members on that side say that this is a wonderful improvement. Not the court, not the appeal board but the Secretary can sit on judgment upon his own decision and see whether or not he was correct in the first instance.

That is pure rubbish.

The hon. member for Omaruru continued the legal approach to this Bill. I think the legal aspects have been dealt with during earlier stages. But I want to say a few things regarding the Bill in its whole context at this Third Reading stage. When in the course of my speech during the Second Reading debate I accused the Government of being obsessed with the question of colour, that colour was basic in its political philosophy, there were vociferous objections from the other side of the House. But I think during the course of this debate it was established how correct I indeed was in what I had said earlier. There has been no attempt to suggest that the work of the classification boards or of the courts has been unjust. There have, however, been many wild suggestions that there is a lot of “trying for White” amongst the Coloured people. I can well understand that there has been no attempt to suggest injustices. Because, whilst there was some degree of flexibility in deciding a person’s race classification, there was always an opening for justice to meet varying and exceptional circumstances of each separate case. But the Government is not satisfied with such a degree of lattitude.

I find it hard to believe that legislation as hard and as inflexible as the new section 5 (5) can meet with the approval of hon. members of this House. This is supposed to be legislation for all time; it is an attempt to legislate for all circumstances without any discretion being allowed regarding classification roots. I know that the Minister finds himself in some difficulty. He used brave words last year about what he was going to do because he thought there was something wrong with the Population Registration Act, and he has come forward with this measure. The reason he has given us for introducing this measure is—to use his own words—that we must stop “creeping integration”. By tortuous reasoning he thinks that this will be achieved if the third party objections are abolished. The hon. member for Omaruru was quite correct. When the right of third parties to object was in the Act at an earlier stage by this House I think the intention was that those persons who were dissatisfied because certain people had white certificates could object thereto so that they could be reclassified as Coloured. But it did not work that way.

Now the Minister has found it necessary to do away with the right of third parties to object and the following position now obtains at this Third Reading stage of this Bill now before us. After a classification the person concerned has 30 days within which to take steps, The Minister can extend that period up to one year. But the Secretary is subject to no time limit. He thus has power greater than that of the Minister himself. He has unlimited time in which to refer cases to the Reclassification Board if he wishes to do so. If a query arises, say five years after a classification, the Secretary can refer it to the board, but the Minister cannot do that. The Minister in charge of the Department does not have that power under this legislation. That is what has led to the removal of the third party objections. Because of the fact that third party objections could be lodged, justice has been done in a number of cases. The hon. member for Omaruru put up the usual political arguments which we hear from the other side; he said that these objections only came forward when persons were encouraged and instigated by liberals and reactionaries and all sorts of people. Well, let me quote to the hon. member for Omaruru from a judgment of Mr. Justice Watermeyer in June, 1966, when he was dealing with a reclassification appeal—

I think that I would prefer to accept the findings of the Court that there are genuine cases. I know that hon. members on the other side regard it as an effective spook story to say that these third party objections came as the result of instigation by extremists and liberals and other enemies of the State. I am sure that nobody in this House wishes to turn white people into Coloureds, or Coloured people into Whites. But we are dealing with human beings in this legislation and who are we to dictate the line of demarcation; who are we to decide on the dividing criterion which cannot be determined by scientists and jurists, as I have mentioned before? I think that the truth came from the Minister when he said something some time ago. The hon. member for Houghton referred to it a bit earlier. It comes back to what I said earlier on about the obsession of that side regarding the division of the peoples of this country into what are now called separate nations. It was during a very early stage of the debate, when he was replying to the hon. member for Umlazi and myself, that the Minister talked about “higher grouping”. The Minister referred to Mr. Justice Diemont’s remarks about difficulties in classification cases. I quote from Hansard of 10th April, 1967 (Col. 3891)—

Why is this? Why should the approach be that persons should find it more difficult to be classified into a “higher group”? We on this side are frequently blamed for the image which we allegedly create of this country by what we say and do in this House. But, Sir, can one think of anything more damaging for our national image than to have a Minister of this Government saying that we, the white people, are the “higher group” and we must make it very difficult for anybody who does not have pure white blood to gain access to that “higher group” and enjoy the privileges which are theirs? There is all this talk of awakening national consciousness and national pride among the Coloured people. Of course they are a proud people. But when we say here that there must be some flexibility in the determination of the dividing line it is hardly justification for the type of criticism which is aimed at us. The hon. member for Innesdal —he is not here this afternoon—had very much to say about my hon. Leader expressing the views that the Coloured people should be drawn closer to the white people. If what the hon. member for Innesdal said are indeed his views then I suggest that he and some other hon. members on that side of the House who think like him quit their benches or else make their position a little clearer to the country. I say this. Sir, because I want to quote, if I may, very briefly from speeches and remarks that have been made about drawing the Coloured people closer to us, not keeping them out and making it more difficult for those who want to join the “higher group”. I want to refer to a speech made by the then Minister of the Interior, who is now the president of the Other Place, when he introduced the Prime Minister of Great Britain to the Union Council for Coloured Affairs. This is what the then Minister said—

Next I wish to refer to a report which appeared in Die Burger in connection with a speech made by the Administrator of the Cape Province. This is what he said—

This is what the present Minister of Defence said when he was Minister of Coloured Affairs, as reported in Die Burger—

Yet the Minister talks here about “higher groups” and “lower groups”, of people “trying for White”, of people being classified too easily into the white group. Here we have heard about sentiments expressed by members of that side of the House in years that have passed.

“Creeping integration” seems to have become a dreadful threat to white South Africa. Yet there have only been 119 appeals out of a total of 1,500.000 people in 12 months. Hon. members on that side pretend that this is such a danger to us, a danger to the future of his country. They say that we must close every door; we must simplify the tasks of the Minister, the Secretary and the courts. If we find that one person is classified as Coloured, that shall be extended to the generations that follow—they will for ever be Coloured people in our country.

I believe that this Bill is an unfortunate measure to come before this House. There is here greater consideration for the division between races rather, than for justice and assistance to the individual human beings who are involved in the application of these laws. For that reason I support wholeheartedly and strongly the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Umlazi.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall reply to what was said by hon. members on the other side. I want to start by expressing a few thoughts on the effects this legislation will have on the lives of our people. The first effect will be that certain malpractices will be eliminated, practices which occurred under the existing Act. We had to contend with two groups of persons who, by virtue of their association, were wrongly classified as White. That happened under the old Act. I want to mention those two categories or groups of persons specifically. The first group consists of persons who were classified as Whites on the strength of false statements made by liberalists. I see the hon. member on the other side waving his hand. [Interjections.] I shall deal with those persons provided that hon. members display a little more patience.

Certain persons were classified as Whites because of false statements that were made by certain persons in remote areas. They are, of course, United Party supporters—what else could they be? They did not hesitate to bear false evidence, because the old Act did not contain a penalty for such an offence. I can mention hundreds of cases of people who were reclassified, people who were essentially known as non-Whites—whether as “half-castes” or as “Coloureds”—over the years. They never associated with Whites. But then certain liberalists did not hesitate to make statements in the courts and before the reclassification Board by saying that those people had always been their friends and had always associated with them. But these people had always attended Coloured schools, they had always been members of a Coloured church, they had all their lives been known in the community as Coloureds. As I have said, those people did not hesitate to make false statements. They claimed that those people had associated with Whites and had always been accepted as Whites. The requirement for acceptance by Whites was therefore falsely complied with by people of that kind. That is why the Opposition is so touchy about this legislation to-day, because this measure definitely renders that possibility impossible in future.

In addition there is another group that was affected by the chain reaction the former group had initiated. They were also classified as Whites. We have many such cases. I have to contend with them in my own constituency. I have to contend with such cases in Namaqualand. There are people who were classified as White on the strength of false statements made by certain liberal groups. Subsequent to that they associated with other Coloureds, known Coloureds in their area, and then they came to the board and claimed to be Whites. They claimed further that the other people associated with them. And they were quite correct—those people did associate with them. But the first group of people were classified wrongly in the first instance. In that way a chain reaction, with all its tragic consequences, was initiated. I want to mention those tragic consequences now. The children of those people are attending white schools. They are known as the children of Coloureds. This inevitably causes frustration and friction. I say that it is something cruel, and I am laying it at the door of the Opposition. They are full of pious stories in this House and are informing us that we are ignoring human suffering as far as this legislation is concerned. But I am telling them now that they are the people who refuse to take notice of human suffering. Those children, who were classified as White but were known as Coloureds in that specific community, had a hard time. At those schools these children experienced a great deal of frustration and human suffering. I say that their frustration and suffering are entered in the books of the Opposition. This sort of thing does not work out.

Who incited them?

You ought to know who incited them. The colour bar is traditional in our country. Does the hon. member for Green Point want to have the colour bar removed in South Africa? I challenge him to say so. Does he want to have it removed in South Africa? He says that I am inciting them. [Interjections.] Will the hon. member have the courage to tell me that he does in fact want to have the colour bar removed? No, he does not have the courage to do so, but he accuses me of inciting people when I refer to an existing practice and arrangement in South Africa.

I did not say that you incited them. I wanted to know who incited them.

The hon. member for Peninsula pleaded that, just as in the existing Act, the public should be the judge in the future as well. Now I say that the public includes those liberalists; the public includes those people who have already been classified wrongly. In this way we are building up a chain reaction, a reaction which will entail an infinitely great deal of “hardships”—hon. members on the other side are very fond of referring to them—to certain people. Surely, this is a perfectly natural phenomenon. After all, in South Africa we do have a colour bar. In this country we believe that White and non-White should be segregated so that we may achieve racial harmony in that way. We believe in neighbourliness among the Whites and the Coloureds and the Bantu. But then we say that the prerequisite for neighbourliness is to have well-defined dividing lines between those races. Those are the things which the Opposition scorns and tries to think away and laugh away, which are the cause of our having to have this legislation in South Africa. They have people in their ranks who did not hesitate to disregard the traditional practices of this country. They did not hesitate to inflict “hardships” on certain people just as long as they could achieve their aim, namely to undermine the apartheid legislation, the colour bar in South Africa.

When the House adjourned last night, I was pointing out that this Act would have the effect that certain malpractices which occurred in registering persons would be eliminated by this legislation. I want to continue and mention a second effect this Act will have, namely that now, for the first time, it is laying down a very clear basis which can no longer be circumvented. Whereas in the past a person’s appearance, which is very doubtful and discretionary, formed in the first instance the basis for a person’s classification, as well as his association which, as I have indicated was seriously abused and misintr-preted in many cases, a new basis has now been substituted which will in the first instance predominate and be accepted as the criterion, namely his descent, which is determined directly by the registration of his parents. In view of the fact that we have or ought to have virtually full registration in South Africa at the moment, this is a very simple and effective basis for saying that, if a person’s parents were classified as belonging to a certain race group or race groups, then he belongs to that group. There can no longer be any obscurity in this respect. There is at present an absolute basis of descent which is being determined by the registration of one’s parents and which will in future determine what the classification of a person will be.

A third effect—which is very important to me and I do not apologize for mentioning it —is that the survival of the white man is being safeguarded by this Act. I say that I do not apologize for saying so. I think that this is one of the things of which the white nation in South Africa is very proud, namely that after 300 years of living under the conditions in which we have been living in Africa and in South Africa, it can still boast of a group of people who have remained pure members of the white race.

Legislation was not necessary.

New situations developed here and we are just as proud of the fact that we helped those lesser nations of Africa and of South Africa to get out of the morass in which they had found themselves in an absolutely inferior position. As we were helping them to get out of the morass of inferiority, we also realized that more distinct dividing lines had to be laid down. I want to ask the hon. member whether he denies that the situation has changed, that we are contending with a new situation in South Africa because we helped those people to develop into decent human beings. As those people developed into decent human beings, they started to make claims, rightful claims, and we told them: Fine, we do not begrudge you any claim worthy of a human being, but we lay down the condition that the survival of the white man should not be jeopardized by these things. Now I challenge any hon. member on the other side to make another interjection and to tell me that that is not necessary.

Who represented it that way?

When I was making my statement the hon. member on the other side made an interjection by which he intimated that he did not agree with my statement. I think the hon. member has once again put his foot in it, as he has done on so many previous occasions. I say that it safeguards the survival of the white man, and we are very proud of that. This is one of the things for which we in this House absolutely refuse to apologize, not to the world outside nor to anybody, and least of all to the liberalists sitting in the benches over there and nagging about this measure before us. I say that we are not even apologizing to them, not even to the hon. member for Musgrave. For that reason it is so clear to me why so much nagging about this Act is to be heard from those benches, because it eliminates those abuses which occurred under the old Act, in which they had found certain loopholes. [Interjection.] I shall deal with that.

I want to mention a fourth effect this Act will have. I shall deal with it hurriedly since my time is very limited. I say that it will afford the Coloureds the opportunity of developing their own national pride. I mentioned the position of the white man on the one hand, and now, on the other hand, I want to emphasize just as strongly the position of the Coloureds, because never in the past were the Coloureds defined as clearly as they are in this Act. In this Act the Coloureds are being defined in the same terms as those in which they have traditionally been accepted in this country. The other day I tried to prove this under a wrong amendment, and for this, Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to you because I did not see your point immediately when you corrected me. I proved that according to dictionaries, national and international, a Coloured had always been accepted as a person born from any mixed marriage between members of different race groups. Any person who is a product of a marriage between members of different race groups has been accepted as a Coloured. That was accepted and from both an American dictionary and a South African dictionary I proved to you that it was traditionally accepted that way. Now we have a definition in the Act which makes that position so clear that nobody can argue with one and say: “I am a Coloured.” If that person can tell you that his parents were both Coloured, then he is a Coloured, and if that person can tell you that he is the child of a Bantu and a white person or of a white person and a Coloured, then he is a Coloured. There cannot be further arguments. Those people now have their own definition in respect of who they are, who are included in their group and who the people are who form part of their community.

A fifth effect of this legislation will be that of establishing better race relations between white and Coloured groups. We know that we in South Africa pursue a policy of neighbourliness with the other groups, but we also know that an absolute prerequisite for neighbourliness—and this has been proved throughout life—is the fact that neighbourliness can only exist where there are sound dividing lines. We in South Africa and this Government are laying down sound dividing lines between the various groups and providing bases which will determine those dividing lines so that in future there may be no more arguments in respect of the group to which a person belongs. The provisions of this Act are framed in the most explicit language possible. Now the Opposition wants to obscure and wipe out those explicit provisions. This will also have the side effect of the Opposition being wiped out further than is the case at present.

The hon. member for Green Point very ostentatiously read out certain quotations from statements the Minister of Defence and the hon. the Administrator are reputed to have made, statements in which both of them plead that the Coloureds should be drawn closer to us and that there should be better relations between the white race and the Coloured race. I wonder whether the hon. Opposition are really so naïve that they fail to realize that good relations between various groups may exist without integration taking place. Not one of those hon. gentlemen has ever said anything to indicate that they wanted to obliterate the dividing lines between those groups. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Defence is not present, otherwise he himself might perhaps have said what he had meant, but he never indicated that he thought that, because he wanted good relations, the differences and the dividing lines between the race groups should be obliterated. I think that it is absolutely absurd to suggest something of that nature. I think that it is so naïve that it is not really worth replying to that. The same applies to the hon. the Administrator. He pleaded for better relations and neighbourliness and he never pleaded for the obliteration of dividing lines. He never pleaded for the definition to be vague and obscure, as the hon. Opposition has been doing for days. I really think that this Bill is an excellent piece of work which will now be placed on the Statute Book and on which we definitely want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department. We regard it as an excellent piece of work.

Before I resume my seat, I should just like to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Green Point when he spoke of human tragedies. He levelled the accusation against us that we simply ignored the human tragedies which resulted from this legislation. I want to level the accusation against him that he is closing his eyes and that his Party and all the liberalists are purposely closing their eyes to the human tragedies which are resulting from the present situation. We have certain traditional relations in South Africa. We have certain traditional concepts in South Africa, and these they cannot obliterate with a stroke of a pen or a sweep of the hand. These are things which are and should be taken into account. Now I want to tell them what happened in my constituency and elsewhere, namely human tragedies of the worst order, tragedies which are attributable to this spiritless attitude adopted by certain people. There is the case of the daughter of a well-known Coloured family, or half-caste family, who was registered as White with the aid of some of these people whom I described at the beginning of my speech and who made a false statement by saying that these people had always been accepted as White. She was registered as a white person and took up employment, in another town, where she married a young man from a highly thought of family. He was a young man who was highly thought of although he was poor and who occupied a position of note in society. That couple had a little boy who was completely White, and there were no problems. Then that couple’s second child, a little girl, was born— and now we must remember that the laws of nature take their inevitable course—and that little girl was an out-and-out Coloured with peppercorns, and so forth. That man was a deacon in the D.R. Church, and at present his little girl is five years of age, and still he does not have the courage to have her christened. Now I ask you: who is responsible for human tragedies? Those people have simply disappeared from society because they are self-conscious and unhappy. Who was responsible for that human tragedy? If that young woman had married one of her own people, a leader from her community, a teacher or another Coloured leader, then she would not have been a frustrated person to-day and then that wretched human tragedy would not have taken place. I challenge hon. members on the other side to tell me what they intend doing about those human tragedies for which they are responsible and which this Bill, which they are fighting tooth and nail to-day, will prevent from being repeated. I say that the people who do not take human tragedies into account are the very same people who have been obstructing the progress of this House for days with their arguments and with deliberately obstructing this Bill.

Order! The hon. member may not use the words “deliberately obstructing”.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I shall say “obstructing”. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister as well as his Department on a piece of work of which all of us are very proud and of which this nation will be proud in time to come and for which he will be thanked by future generations.

Mr. Speaker, it ill becomes an hon. member on that side of the House to talk about human tragedies in relation to this Bill. What does this hon. member mean and what do all these hon. gentlemen mean when, as this hon. member did, they talk about “suiwerheid”. We will be proud to be “suiwer lede van die blanke groep”. What is “’n suiwer lid van die blanke groep”?

Are you one?

I think I am. Who in this country who can trace his ancestors back to before 1800 can be sure that he is “suiwer van bloed”?

This Bill does exactly the opposite to what that hon. member says it does. This has nothing to do with “suiwerheid”. It has nothing to do with the “suiwer bloed” of anybody. The hon. member chose one example to show that if a person’s parents were classified Coloured, he would be Coloured. Surely this is exactly what we are arguing about. If the effects of being a Coloured person or a white person were the same, if no tragedy were visited upon those persons and no disabilities were visited upon persons who become Coloured, having been White before, does anyone think that we would have spent all the time that we have spent in this House debating and opposing this Bill? [Interjection.] I only have two minutes. The hon. the Minister says in the first place that he can give us an assurance that what was done in the past would not be affected. The hon. the Minister gave us that assurance. When he was tested on his assurance in the Report Stage and he was asked to assure this House in law and to assure the country in law that persons who had been classified would not be reclassified in accordance with all the “nonsenses” that are in this Bill, the hon. the Minister would not do it. What he said was: What I really meant was that those persons already classified by a board or by a court would not be affected. We do not need that assurance, Sir. The Bill already provides for that. We are here dealing with people who are either White or Coloured, people who are and have been accepted as white people, people who have been born into this country of ours because their parents were married as white persons. When the hon. the Minister was asked not to apply any presumption that the parents of persons who were married as Whites under this Nationalist Government’s law relating to mixed marriages were Coloured, he refused the amendment.

Business interrupted in terms of Standing Order No. 68 (1).

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the stage, namely the Third Reading stage, where a very important and also extremely contentious amending Bill has to be finally put through. It is not my intention to take up too much of the time of this House. However, the Opposition deemed it necessary to fight this Bill very passionately and emphatically in all its stages, even in the Report Stage and now in the Third Reading stage as well. Therefore I think that, in dealing with and briefly summarizing the implications of this legislation it is perhaps also necessary for me to reply, as I go along, to some of their statements which, to my mind, do not hold water at all. The reasons for this legislation having been fought so vehemently are obvious to me. This Bill, as amended now, will make it more difficult for people belonging to one population group to cross over or to be dragged over to another population group to which they do in actual fact not belong. That is the fundamental principle in this Bill, and that is the effect of these amendments. This will be proved in the future. It is to these stricter provisions, which are to have this effect, that the entire hon. Opposition is so strongly opposed. As a result of the more explicit definitions in clause 1 and as a result of the further provisions in clause 2, where, unlike the position in the past, a great deal of, and in most cases decisive, significance is being attached to the classification of the parents, along with the provisions in respect of appearance and acceptance, we shall to a large extent be putting a stop to reclassification on a doubtful basis. In 1950 this Act was passed in this House for the first time, in the face of the most vehement opposition from that side of the House. At that stage the definition was extremely vague, but I do not want to criticize that. In 1950 that Act marked the beginning of the implementation of the principle of race classification. At that time the Government felt that they had to proceed slowly so as to cause as little hardship and disruption as possible. The person concerned had to be given as much benefit of the doubt as possible, actually in order to place him in a privileged position. This was why the entire classification was based on appearance only. This worked well. Millions of people were classified during the period 1950 to 1962. To a certain extent the borderline cases in terms of the old definition were all that remained. It was obscure because at first descent and association had nothing to do with the matter. Appearance was the only factor that applied to classification—classification into a group to which one could perhaps not belong because of association, acceptance or descent. But that was done. Then we came to 1962. It was felt then that there had to be more clarity, because we had to contend mainly with borderline cases. At that time the principle of acceptance for certain population groups was introduced, and it was once again opposed strongly by the Opposition. Now we have gone further. I maintain that 98 per cent if not 100 per cent of those borderline cases of that time are cases of the past. They were settled in that lenient way. Now, after we have been classifying and registering people as members of various population groups for 17 years, we find that there is a new wave of borderline cases. These borderline cases are cases which, if we did not amend this Act, would increase instead of decrease in number. We would never have stopped reclassifying and dealing with borderline cases. Owing to prevailing circumstances, it has now become necessary to effect a further amendment in the Act, an amendment in terms of which we are also taking into account the classification of the parents of people applying for classification or lodging appeals for reclassification. In other words, there will be descent according to classification and not necessarily descent according to blood. That is the point hon. members on the other side want to make—and did make all the time—and they did not want to understand that the statement I am making now is the accurate, the correct, one. The classification to which reference is being made in the new section 1 (2) is not classification according to descent. It is a classification in terms of the provisions of the 1950 Act, which only used appearance as a factor. From 1962 to 1967 classifications have been done on the basis of appearance and acceptance. Now we are making it classification according to appearance and acceptance as well as the classification of the parents. Their descent is the only factor which is being taken into account as far as classification is concerned. I hope that it is very clear now.

You sound like Pontius Pilate.

I am asking, in the first instance, all reasonable people … [Interjections.] I do not blame the hon. member for Durban (North) if he does not have sufficient reason for being reasonable. I am putting this question to all reasonable people in any country—because they will understand when they read this and when this question is put to them—why classification was introduced at all and implemented for 17 years. Why have we had classifications for 17 years if those classifications may never be used for the purpose of proving a person’s descent? If that had not been the reason, there should not have been any classification.

Quite correct.

There it is! I knew it was coming! Because the Opposition is opposed to classification in principle …

That is correct.

… because in principle they are opposed to any separation of the races; because in principle they are opposed to this Government’s policy of development on the basis of various race identities and groups and giving recognition to them; because they know that this is to a large extent the basis of whether or no we shall achieve success in this country with separate development for the various race groups along their own lines; because they think that their success depends on the extent to which we do not succeed with our policy, that is why they are in principle opposed to classification. That is why we are hearing these stories about “hardship”, that is why we hear hon. members on the other side saying “I am so concerned” and “We are so concerned” about the poor people who will supposedly be classified too high or too low. But these stories are not worth the paper they are printed on in Hansard. I shall tell you why I say so. Right at the beginning of the discussions on this measure, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put it in the most explicit terms when he said, inter alia, the following (Hansard, col. 3191, 1967)—

He might just as well have said “with a great deal of Coloured blood”—

There we have the basis, the corner-stone on which the Opposition’s entire objection is founded. In this connection I can merely refer to the hon. member for Umlazi’s objection that in this respect there is “no flexibility any more”. According to him there is “too little flexibility”. He wants this measure to be more flexible. The Opposition’s starting-point is that this measure should be so flexible that biological integration among the various races, and particularly between the non-white and the white races in South Africa, should take place at will. [Interjections.]

Rubbish!

Oh yes! They do not say that they are in favour of that happening, but they say that we should not prohibit it by means of legislation. That is why we should not have a Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, either. [Interjections.] That is the case. It is no use trying to get past that. In other words, if we want racial harmony and peace in South Africa; if we want to foster national pride amongst the various race groups; if we want to put a stop to the exploitation which is taking place, and which may take place, through the cream being skimmed off one race group and added to another, if we want to achieve all these things, then this Government and this Party must do its duty and perform its task, and it is for that reason that we are introducing, inter alia, this legislation. That will be the effect of the provisions contained in this measure.

It was mentioned here that we were causing people to degenerate, that we were pushing them down. The hon. member for Green Point—I see that he is not present—in his fine-sounding speech said, for political reasons, that I was really the person who had referred to “high” and “low”. I did in fact refer to “high” and “low”, but I shall tell hon. members what I said. I said the following—

There I talked about “too high” and “too low”, and that is the only time I talked about “too high”. But why did I do so? Because it was the only way in which I could bring a certain concept home to hon. members on the other side—I tried other ways as well, but it would not sink in among hon. members on that side. Then I decided to use the terminology of that side, because they are the people who referred to “too high” or “too low” first. I want to quote what the hon. member for Umlazi said some time ago, not what he said during the Third Reading or the Report Stage, but what he had said during the Second Reading Debate. He said the following—

That is where the “ups and downs” started! [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton has the courage of her convictions so as not to jump about. She also referred to “up” and “down”. But she explained—as was said once again by the hon. member for Durban (North)—and said the following: “… because there are disabilities to be a Coloured.”

Of course there are.

You are quite right. You said it three times.

But for heaven’s sake, Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in the world who will deny that the Whites, by virtue of the older and higher civilization they have as background and their position of leadership here in South Africa, which is Western in origin, are in various respects better equipped and doing more than the, non-Whites not only in South Africa, but in the whole of Africa and, indeed, in the world. There is nobody who will deny the difference between White and non-White in respect of various matters such as background, history, intellect, and so forth. The white man hewed his own way, and I suppose that the white man is entitled to the standard of living which he is maintaining at present and which he himself has built up. Moreover, there is probably nobody who will deny that the non-Whites in South Africa, who are better off at present than the other non-Whites in the rest of Africa, would have been much worse off if it had not been for the influence of the white man and the helping hand the white man had extended to them. If non-Whites had availed themselves of the opportunity, which was afforded them under the existing Act, to be classified higher merely for the sake of deriving benefits that way, then it would have been a different matter, but they did not avail themselves of this opportunity in that sense. They availed themselves of it in a different sense, and the hon. member for Peninsula, who is a Coloured Representative, went as far as to refer to second-class citizens and first-class citizens, first-class if one were White and second-class if one were a Coloured. In other words, if I were to carry the hon. member’s argument to its logical conclusion, it means that the people he represents in this House are second-class citizens of South Africa and that he is a second-class representative here.

Third-class.

Yes, he represents them and therefore he is third-class, really. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is no argument. That merely proves the basic difference in our outlook and in the approach to this entire race problem in South Africa. This Bill will make it more difficult for non-Whites to cross over from one race group to another race group and it will contribute to preventing them from running away from their own race group and leaving their own race group in the lurch in order to try to be something other than they really are; it will compel them to cast in their lot with that of the non-Whites and to devote their talents mainly to the education and the upliftment of their own people. This is also what Mr. Schwartz, the chairman of the Coloured Council, said at their 30th annual meeting. They cannot swallow the argument the hon. member for Peninsula advanced yesterday, namely that one had to leave the door open because it would cause “hardships” if people, once they had built up certain associations, were not allowed to be dragged over to the white group and, by doing so, to leave the Coloured group poorer than it would have been if this had been prohibited.

They are going to Canada.

They will devise plans and the Opposition will devise plans to see whether this Act does not perhaps contain more loopholes through which they may escape, and that is why I am not prepared to say that this Act will never be changed again. Hon. members of the Opposition made mention of the fact that my predecessor had promised in 1962 that descent would never be taken into account. They claim that I am breaking the promise given by the Government and that one cannot, therefore, take the Government’s word. Mr. Speaker, that is sheer nonsense, because the descent my predecessor referred to relates to blood. When I refer to descent, it relates to classification only. If the criterion had been blood, why are we not simply going back to grandmother and grandfather and great-grandfather?

Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with the primary object we want to achieve with this Bill, and I have pointed out the basic difference between this side and that side of the House. My time is relatively limited and in concluding I should like to deal with the question of objections lodged by third parties. We have done away with objections by third parties. In view of the fact that the Secretary still has the right to reclassify persons if he receives information which justifies such a step, hon. members on the other side suggested that a witch-hunt will now be started. The possibility of a witch-hunt was a thousand times greater when, under the old Act, third parties had the opportunity and the right to lodge at any time, years and years after people had been classified, objections which could lead to reclassification. In this Bill we are not at all detracting from the right any person has to lodge, within the prescribed period, an objection on behalf of himself—or on behalf of a child—against his classification. On the contrary, that right still applies; he can lodge an objection and he can lodge appeals right up to the highest courts. People who object to a person’s classification may bring the information at their disposal to the notice of the Secretary so that he may consider it. If it is valueless, he will not take notice of it; if it is based on fact, he will pay attention to it. He may reclassify the person concerned himself, or he may refer the case to a board. People who are affected by reclassification, have the right of appeal; they themselves will have the right of appeal, but the third party will not. People who have been reclassified and who are too late in lodging their objections will have no right of appeal to a court of appeal. I believe that this is a step in the right direction and that it is an improvement on the provisions of the old Act. The effect of this will be that this very same Opposition will say in a few years’ time that this Act functions well, and it must please not be changed. Another point which is connected with that and with which I also want to deal is what hon. members of the Opposition described as the curtailment of the jurisdiction of the courts. It is being provided explicitly that in this case the courts will not be revision courts, but courts of appeal. This provision can, moreover, only contribute to sounder judgments and to justice being done to the appellant. That is why—regardless of what blame is being cast upon me personally or upon the Government—I believe that this Bill will contribute to giving greater satisfaction as regards the classification of all race groups and the way it will be done in future.

Why in future?

Because the Act comes into operation now and will actually have effect in future. There are a few exceptional cases which may occur and in respect of which reclassification will still have to be done on the application of the persons themselves or by virtue of the fact that people may submit to the Secretary certain true facts which may convince him that the original classification was wrong.

Why not before a judge?

He did so in the past in thousand of cases; if he reclassifies persons under this Act, such reclassified persons will have the right of appeal. They are not being denied that. But those hon. members do not want to listen and read the Act properly. They merely want to see something sinister in it. I believe that it will also contribute to achieving racial harmony in this country and to greater co-operation, and it will eliminate the process of continuously dragging non-Whites into the white arena, whether for party-political purposes or otherwise.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to thank the Government for the additional amount of R6½ million made available for housing this year. I think we may testify to the goodwill of this Government in respect of the provision of housing in the Republic because it is certainly a matter which is very dear to our hearts. We are aware of the fact that there is a great leeway, but it is a leeway over which we have no control. Hon. members will recall that when we came into power in 1948 we inherited a great leeway from the previous government. As a result of the normal population increase and also as a result of the flow of immigrants to South Africa, the leeway became larger through the years and it also became necessary for the Government to devote more attention to housing. I want to say that in my view the fact that we have not yet succeeded in making up this leeway is also attributable to a large extent to the fact that local governments have not readily drawn on the financial resources made available to them. I say this because it sometimes appears to me as though in larger cities in particular, for example Johannesburg, political motives are involved. There is speculation throughout the country, and particularly now that a by-election is being held in Johannesburg (West), that everything is done for the Bantu as far as housing is concerned and nothing for the Whites. If anybody is to be blamed for the leeway in white housing in the Johannesburg areas—I wonder whether the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) will not get up here to-day and give us some information on the matter—that blame is to be laid at the door of the City Council of Johannesburg. I also want to say that I think that on the part of the Government, particularly as far as the previous Minister, Mr. P. W. Botha, is concerned, and now the present Minister, a great effort is made to effect the necessary liaison between the Government and the local governments, particularly to ensure that progress is made in respect of housing, and we are grateful for that.

I want to deal with my own constituency more specifically, and here I want to break a lance to-day. We are grateful that an amount of R1½ million has been made available to that constituency for the erection of houses, but I want to make a plea to-day and I want to couple it to a second point I want to make, namely urban renewal. If we study the housing projects undertaken in our towns and cities, we find the extraordinary situation that these schemes are moving further and further away from the central city or town areas. One finds that in the hearts of the towns or cities a process has been started, namely that those parts are dying off more and more rapidly. They develop into slum areas. It is a trend one finds throughout the world. One sees it in large cities like Washington, London and other cities in Europe, where this phenomenon is noticeable. As far as my own constituency is concerned, the same process is going on. One finds that there were previously beautiful residential areas adjoining the business centres or the factories in the town. The zoning practices of the local governments have caused a kind of slump which is giving rise to slum conditions. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister to-day, and we know that some work is already being done along these lines and that a liaison section has been established in his Department, to give consideration to urban renewal and to devote more attention to it, I want to plead that as far as this is concerned we should consider whether the time has not come for the Minister to adopt an approach to urban renewal which is completely different from the one we have had so far. At present we find that urban renewal is simply left in the hands of the local governments, with sympathy and support from the Central Government. The line I am thinking on is whether we should not study the possibility of establishing a completely separate statutory body to deal exclusively with urban renewal. If there are recalcitrant local governments such a body may deal with the problem and try to solve it. In such a case the Department may then call on the assistance of the statutory body, which will continue the process of renewal. I want to mention an analogous case. Hon. members will remember that when the City Council of Johannesburg adopted a recalcitrant approach as regards the removal of black spots, the Government appointed a resettlement board, which is a statutory body. Now we have an exactly analogous case here, in that the City Council of Johannesburg is getting nowhere, despite the fact that they have sent quite a few missions abroad to investigate this problem and have submitted lengthy reports to the effect that the matter should be dealt with sympathetically. I get the feeling that we should consider establishing a similar statutory body to deal with this kind of matter. I should like to hear the Minister’s opinion in this regard. Perhaps the existing liaison between the Department and the local governments is actually good, but it was my experience, in the years I dealt with this matter in a variety of bodies, that it simply does not work. We still have the position as far as the local governments are concerned, and here I am speaking of the Transvaal in particular, that where there are management committees and where other city councils have committees handling matters of this nature, there are nothing but disputes all the time, and that one cannot actually make a quick decision to carry out a project. We find this position, which is called primus inter pares. This means that we have a whole horizontal organization system under which there is no close liaison between one department and the next. We then find that there is no joint action as far as these matters are concerned. For that reason I think that if we can think along these lines, namely to establish a statutory body which will be exclusively concerned with urban renewal, we will get that uppermost “umbrella body” which will be able to take all these strings in hand and to implement these matters. [Time expired.]

So many matters have already been raised here that it seems to me that I should try to reply to quite a few of them now in order to help hon. members to touch upon other matters afterwards or to express criticism in regard to the direction which I am taking. I want to divide my reply into different sections. I want to begin with the housing programme to which various members have referred. The hon. member for Umlazi made it one of his most important points when he spoke. He expressed the fear that there was going to be a slowing down of the housing programme. He mentioned as an example the fact that there are several projects which local authorities wanted to tackle but for which they could not receive the necessary money from the Housing Commission during the course of this year.

He took that as an indication of a slowing down or a relaxation of the housing programme. Before I go into that in detail I want to state briefly that in regard to the general programme in South Africa for housing which falls within the range of activities of the Housing Commission there is no acute shortage. There are in fact shortages, but those shortages arise as a result of the natural increase in the population, as a result of industrial development or expected industrial development in a particular area, as a result of immigraton, as a result of slum clearance and the improvement of inadequate residential units, as a result of the implementation of the Group Areas Act and also as a result of the provision for the aged, which has come strongly to the fore in recent times. A great many of these matters fall within the ambit of the Housing Commission’s projects. In other words, they fall into the category of the lower income groups.

I just want to say that as far as the lower income groups are concerned, there is really no acute housing shortage in South Africa. The shortage which actually exists is, according to my observations as well as those of my Department, only in respect of the middle income groups, i.e. the groups which fall outside the category of the National Housing Commission’s obligations. I have already discussed that on various occasions. I have already indicated that steps are being taken to investigate possible means of making sites more readily available and of finding other methods of making house building easier for the middle income groups, so that each individual will not have to have a house built himself. I think that as a result of the increased building costs it is beginning to become a luxury article in South Africa. We have done all that preparatory work, and we are carrying out investigations into the matter.

I want to confine myself now to the housing programme which falls within the ambit of the activities of my Department and which falls within the ambit of the Housing Commission. That is what the hon. member spoke about. He is afraid that the process is beginning to be slowed down. Although I am discussing this matter I do not want to refer back to the past. Yet, I want to express my wholehearted agreement with what the hon. member for Benoni said. He said that we still had serious shortages principally in those areas where, until two years ago, we had had to beg the local authorities to accept and make a start with housing schemes. Those are areas where they did not want to do that. They said that they would not take the risk of taking those obligations on their shoulders. They did not want to take the risk of being saddled with houses which they could not lease. According to surveys of my Department the greatest housing shortage amongst the lower income groups is in the Johannesburg and Cape Town areas. It was precisely in those areas where my predecessor and his Department experienced the greatest problem of getting them to make a start. They had to make a start with their own departmental schemes. They were forced to say to those people: If you do not make a start with your building schemes now, we will undertake those building schemes ourselves and we will then force you to take over, after we have built those houses. It was only then that we were able to get them started. Fortunately there has been a change in approach. To-day I must testify to the fact that I am getting the greatest co-operation from most of the municipalities in South Africa in respect of most matters. There are still municipalities where problems are being experienced, but I do not think the problems lie so much with the town councils themselves, as with a few officials of the town council who, for some reason or other, are not yet co-operating properly with my Department. I think we will get those problems ironed out. I do not think that this is the occasion to discuss that.

As for the programme, I simply cannot understand how the hon. member for Umlazi can imply that there will be a slowing down of the programme. Let me give him the particulars. I shall just furnish him with the particulars for the last four or five years. In 1963-’64 the amount spent on housing, from housing funds, was R10.9 million. That is the amount which was actually spent. It is not the amount which had been voted. A much larger amount had been voted in that year, but, as the hon. member recalls, R10.5 million which the local authorities had not used was paid back in that year. In 1964-’65 R20.9 million was spent. In 1965-’66 the amount was R33.25 million. In 1966-’67 the amount was R42.9 million. In the 1967-’68 financial year it is expected, according to the Estimates, that we will spend R49.25 million.

Are you satisfied that it is used to the best advantage?

If I could get more than that amount from the Treasury I would take it gladly, but hon. members know what the general position is and I think, where a single service is being granted an increase of almost 14 per cent in one year and taking into consideration the general financial state of the country, that it can be regarded as an exceptional achievement that the Government has been able to give this service the priority it did. But there are other arguments too, i.e. it is unnecessary to make the money available if the service cannot be carried out. I shall deal with that in a moment when I come to discuss the overall picture of building programmes in South Africa.

Are those figures divided up amongst the races or are they overall figures?

They are overall amounts.

Is there any division?

I shall be able to tell the hon. member how they are divided up, but it would take me a long time. Let me now, to satisfy the hon. member, furnish the figures in respect of Whites. We must remember that these amounts are often spent for purchasing land on which the houses must be built, for laying on services, and so on. But the real question is: How many dwellings are being provided? What is the picture there? I shall now indicate the number of dwellings for Whites against the relevant year:

The estimate for 1967-’68 is 7,600 dwellings for Whites. These dwellings are being constructed from the funds of the Housing and Community Development Council only. In other words, there has been a considerable increase in housing provision for Whites. If it is now being alleged in certain areas, for the sake of catching votes, that this Government is spending too much money on housing for non-Whites and too little on housing for Whites, then I say that it is a deliberate distortion of the facts, because particularly since last year the Government has in fact decided, as a result of the prevailing conditions, to give top priority to housing for Whites and has cut down to a considerably greater extent on the applications for housing for non-Whites than it has done in respect of housing for Whites.

It is true of course that if the money had been available one would have been able to make much more housing available, but I should rather prefer to deal with this aspect in connection with the second topic which I want to deal with and that is the question put to me by the hon. member for Durban (Point), i.e. whether rent control is not having a prejudicial and impeding effect on housing provision in the country? It is extremely difficult to gauge this matter, but I think it would be a good indication if we were to glance at the true picture in regard to the building industry in South Africa. Here I once more want to view this matter in the overall connection, i.e. in respect of approved building projects as compared with the building projects which have actually been completed by the building industry over the past few years. I begin again at 1964. In 1964 residential units to the value of R197 million and non-residential units to the value of R135 million were approved. In other words, construction work to the value of R332 million was approved during that year. But the building industry was only able to complete construction work to the value of R181 million during that year, of which R1ll million was for residential units and R70 million was for non-residential units. In other words, a backlog of construction work to the value of R151 million which could not be completed mounted up. In 1965 there were additional new approvements to the value of R209 million for residential units and R174 million for non-residential units. Add to that the backlog of R151 million then it means that the building industry could have constructed buildings to the value of R434 million during that year. But the building industry was only able to complete construction work to the value of R151 million in respect of residential units and R91 million in respect of non-residential units—that is to say, construction work to the value of R242 million. In other words, the backlog increased to R192 million.

In 1966 residential units to the value of R176 million and non-residential units to the value of R158 million were approved. Add once more the backlog of R192 million, then in 1966 there was work to the value of R526 million available to the building industry. But in 1966 the building industry could only complete residential units to the value of R147 million and non-residential units to the value of R255 million. That means that at the moment there is a backlog of approved buildings to the value of R271 million on the waiting list which still have to be dealt with by the building industry. In respect of residential units alone the backlog at the moment is R163 million.

It is not a question of the building having been approved but that the owners did not want to build as a result of other considerations. It is true that higher rates of interest may have had an influence on a few projects. It may have been the case that credit control had an influence on certain projects, but it is not true that either rent control, credit control or the rates of interest has really had a dampening effect on the interest of investors in that direction because just in the last few weeks I have heard of new projects. One particular financial undertaking is for example drawing up plans for a project to the value of R5 million. This consists of flat and business premises in Bloemfontein. The same undertaking will construct 800 residential units in Pretoria. Last week a party inquired from me how soon we would have made such progress with the provisional planning for District Six that he would be able to obtain a site on the mountain side of District Six on which he wanted to erect flat units to the value of R1 million. In this way I am continually receiving inquiries from possible investors in this direction. I do not get the impression of there being a problem in this connection at all as a result of rent control or the other factors which were mentioned.

As far as rent control is concerned, I want to furnish hon. members with the following interesting particulars. I had a survey made of what the effect had been, and it was found that during the period 4th November, 1966, to 31st March, 1967, 4,095 applications for increased rentals for residential units had been investigated. Of those 4,095 applications which were investigated, 3,253 had been granted, in other words, that many increases in rental had been granted. There had only been 312 applications for a decrease in rental in respect of residential units. These are not flats but single units. In 230 cases the decrease in rentals was in fact granted. Thus one is left with the impression that where applications for an increase in rental were received, there was justification in the vast majority of cases—in more than three quarters of the cases—for an increase in rental, which was subsequently granted. As far as applications for a decrease in rental were concerned, there was justification in two thirds of the cases for a decrease in rental. These are interesting particulars and I thought that hon. members would be interested in them.

As far as rent control is concerned, I just want to say the following: I have already said that it is not my intention that rent control should remain in force for ever, and that I should like to reconsider the position. I have given the undertaking that I would reconsider the Act in respect of certain aspects after the necessary particulars had been supplied to me but each time I have come up against an almost insurmountable problem for which I have not been able to obtain any solution, and that is the question of valuations. When we are dealing with valuations it has been my unfortunate experience that if one has a valuation made by two persons the valuations of those two persons of the same place will differ up to 25 per cent from each other. That is why it seems to me that the method being followed by the rent boards, namely of making comparisons with buildings in the vicinity and then taking those valuations into account, is in the long run the only method which works.

Have you invited the interested parties to submit suggestions to you?

Yes, and they have in fact forwarded quite a few suggestions to me. We are making a careful study of all those suggestions but not all of them deal with the question of valuation. What is the value of a building and how is one going to determine the valuation? One cannot always accept the owner’s valuation. We have had cases where the owner made a valuation of a building and where the Department also obtained a valuation and where the Department’s valuation was considerably higher than that of the owner. Then one also has other cases where the valuation of the valuator who was asked by the Department to undertake the valuation is much lower than the valuation which the owner places on that property.

Have you accepted the principle of market value?

Who determines the market value; what is the market value?

The price that a willing seller is prepared to accept from a willing buyer.

We are considering this entire matter. There are still quite a number of applications which have to be dealt with and as soon as the slack has been taken up we shall have a more or less fixed rent pattern, and the impression I have at the moment is that the number of cases of exploitation which are in fact taking place is so comparatively small in relationship to the number of residential units in South Africa which are being made available by private initiative, to judge from the number of complaints and the applications for a reduction in rental which have been received, that the time may perhaps be very nigh at hand when we will be able to repeal the rent control measures which were introduced last year. It seems to me that it will be possible to do so. We have in the meantime caught up with and dealt with the small number of exploiters which there were but I do not think it is in the public interest that we should continue to apply rent control longer than is necessary, something which might possibly hamper the contribution of private initiative to the provision of dwellings

Will you do away with it?

Yes, I have said that I will do away with it as soon as the slack in regard to the applications which are at present before the Rent Boards has been taken up to a reasonable extent. We are taking up the slack very rapidly. I am not committing myself now but it appears to me that this could be the result, if I am correct in my judgment. However, I do not want to give a definite promise too soon. But to that I want to add a serious word of warning, particularly in respect of business premises. It has come to my attention—and I had quite a number of cases investigated and it has been established beyond doubt—that there have been cases in the past two to three months where the owners of business premises have suddenly increased the rental in respect of those business premises by 300 per cent. Again these are again isolated cases; it is not a general pattern and it may be necessary for us to make a small amendment in the Rents Act in order to give me the power, where an isolated case like that comes to my attention, to place that particular building under rent control. I am considering it at present. This problem in regard to the provision of buildings and also of buildings in South Africa, is assuming such proportions that there is a tremendous backlog, not so much as a result of a shortage of funds, but particularly as a result of a shortage of skilled labour, particularly as a result of the fact that we simply do not have the trained artisans to carry the building industry in this time of prosperity which we are experiencing. It has therefore become necessary for us to think more and more along the lines of pre-construction building methods. I know that the brick industry is faced with the problem that it has great surpluses at the moment and that it would be to its advantage if the conventional building industry could proceed more rapidly than is the case at the moment.

I am aware that the brick industry is at present investigating ways and means of trying to make a contribution on their part by having skilled workers trained to construct dwellings and buildings according to the conventional method.

I am aware of all the attempts which they are making, but in view of the entire programme with which we have to deal—I shall say something more about this in a moment —it is clear to me that we will have to investigate ways and means of making better use of pre-constructed building methods. I have come to the conclusion that one of the reasons why pre-constructed building methods cannot always, as far as the cost aspect is concerned, compete with the conventional method, is the fact that if one should want to manufacture factory-made buildings on a large scale in a factory then there has to be an assured market within a given area over a period of years, otherwise that factory simply cannot be established, it does not have a regular market for its product, and consequently it cannot offer the product at the most economic price. Where we still have pre-constructed building projects in the country, it is only partially factory-made projects with which we are working. But factory-made projects are a relative concept. Even the ordinary brick with which one builds is a factory-made product. What I am getting at here is the question whether we should not do something in order to have larger units, which are used in building construction, manufactured in the factories and merely put together on the building sites. This is what is happening in overseas countries and to a certain extent here, but here it is still happening principally where one is able to manufacture those units for the most part on the site, and then it only has limited possibilities.

We shall have to investigate whether there is not a method whereby we can encourage a greater measure of pre-fabricated construction of houses. I do not want to say more about that topic at this stage because a Building Advisory Council has just been established. That Building Advisory Council will possibly have as a subsidiary an advisory committee on pre-construction building. I would very much like to discuss this entire matter in full with the representatives of the building industry and with the experts in that field before I adopt any definite attitude in this regard. I am merely mentioning it to indicate that I am aware of the problems and that I am aware that something drastic will have to be done to be able to make up the leeway in the building industry if we want to get on with our programme.

The hon. member for Umlazi asked me whether, in the light of these problems, we should not alter our entire approach; whether we should not let the emphasis shift more from resettlement to housing provision; whether we should not rather slow down the implementation of the Group Areas Act, since the people are still living in houses; and preferably just supply houses. But it is not as easy as all that, because one of the main problems—and the hon. member for Benoni touched upon it—is that we simply cannot any longer, with the population explosion which we are experiencing to-day, with the tremendous expansion of our urban complexes, with the expected larger complexes which there will be in future, merely expand outwards and be left with all the unsightly conditions in the centre of our urban complexes. Often one has to do just that in order to provide housing, i.e. undertake removals. Let me take Durban as an example. The Durban area is hemmed in between the Bantu areas to the north and to the south and the Cato Manor area to the west. One can only tackle house building on a large scale after the Cato Manor area has been cleared. I shall return to that point in a moment. That is why urban renewal and slum clearance are things which have to go hand in hand with housing provision in South Africa to-day, otherwise we shall build up such a backlog that we will subsequently be unable to deal with the problem any longer.

The hon. member for Benoni asked me whether the time has not come for us to take some drastic steps or other and possibly entrust slum clearance and urban renewal to a statutory body. I do not want to commit myself at the moment but what I do want to say is that to us in South Africa the problems are relatively new ones. Our local authorities really know very little about it. Our various Government Departments are only in the initial stages of gaining experience in regard to this entire matter. We are now following the pattern of appointing a Government Committee in each area where such a renewal project has to be tackled, one which must, together with the local authority, undertake the planning. We are appointing consultants from one place to another to advise us. But all these people are doing reconnaissance work. I think the time has come for us, with a view to the programme, to undertake a thorough investigation of the entire matter of slum clearance and urban renewal. I have already appointed a committee in regard to the prevention of deterioration in our urban areas. During the recess I shall give particular attention to this problem and we shall, if necessary, also investigate carefully what is being done in other countries in this regard in order to draft a proper programme according to which the State and the local authorities can co-operate closely, and according to which it will be made possible for local authorities and private bodies to contribute to the prevention of slum and the clearance of slum conditions. In the past three years, from 1st January, 1964 to 31st December, 1966, our slum clearance courts have only declared 764 sites as slum areas, and in only 270 cases have those orders been rescinded. In other words, it is only a small drop in the bucket of the major problems with which we are faced.

Hon. members who go and have a look at the conditions which are prevailing—if they were merely to drive up Roeland Street where the road is under construction and look to both sides they would see what conditions are prevailing in the heart of our cities—will realize that these conditions simply cannot be allowed to continue. We simply dare not go further afield and build houses at Bothasig and even further, while in the heart of Cape Town itself the conditions are deteriorating, as they are doing at present. During this year my Department will spend a total amount of R10 million on land purchases and additional services, but chiefly on land purchases. This is for the purchase of these dilapidated areas where renewal must take place. It is an amount of R10 million in one year only and then there are still the following areas to be dealt with in the next five to ten years.

Here in Cape Town there is the entire District Six area, which will require a further R20 million merely for the purchasing of land and the development of services. In Port Elizabeth there is the South End and there is also East London. In Durban there is Cato Manor, Prospect Hall and Riverside. In Johannesburg there is the Newclare complex, Fordsburg, Pageview and Vrededorp. In Pretoria there is the Asiatic Bazaar. In Stellenbosch there is also an area. In Firgrove there is also an area which must be replanned. There is the entire Jeppe area in Johannesburg, and also Doornfontein and New Doornfontein, and in Germiston there is the Georgetown area and Parelshoop. In Pretoria there is the Walmer area and the Lady Selborne area, Highlands and Eastwood.

In Durban there is the block AK in Umgeni Road and Overport. In Cape Town there are still places in Claremont and Epping, and in Paarl there is still the Old Garden. These are only a few of the areas. Do hon. members realize that purchases of land with a view to replanning and development costs in those areas alone will amount to R100 million over the next five to ten years? And then the people at present living there have not even been resettled yet. Can you see therefore what a tremendous project we are tackling here? And we can brook no further delay in regards to this project. If we do not tackle this project in all earnest now these conditions will become a disgrace to our country, health conditions will be undermined and the social values of the people living there will be destroyed. That is why I cannot associate myself with any idea which may arise that the programme of resettlement, slum clearance and urban renewal should be curtailed even further.

We have already had to cut down on this programme to a certain extent according to the amount of funds available. These are things which one would have preferred to have tackled in times of economic recession but I do not think, in view of the conditions prevailing in our larger urban complexes, that we can brook any further delay with this project.

During the recess I also intend devoting particular attention to this aspect and if necessary we will also undertake investigations in overseas countries to see in what way the problems are being tackled there. We want to do that so that we can draw up a programme which will be acceptable to the local authorities and to the Government and so that the problem can be tackled and solved as part of a joint effort. As regards the removal of Indians, from Johannesburg for example, I can say that we hope to remove a further 1,000 of them during this year. However, this removal of Indians is merely a small subdivision of the tremendous programme with which we are faced. We must not stare ourselves blind at the removal of only a few people and forget about the urgent need to save our cities from dilapidation and destruction, with the concomitant social and moral disintegration of our people.

The hon. member for Umlazi also asked me to have a thorough investigation made into the method of providing houses. He mentioned a few cases, inter alia, Tileba. He quoted at length from the objections made by a certain person there, alleging that the houses were being sold to people there as they stood, that the construction work there was poor—he called it “jerry built”—and that they would have to make the best of a bad job. I want to ask the hon. member, when in future he rises in this House to make allegations of this nature, not to rely on letters which he has received from individual persons. He must first have the circumstances in question investigated properly. I have already had all the particulars in regard to Tileba put at my disposal. But when the hon. member raised the matter again, I again obtained all the particulars and on the basis of those particulars I want to inform the hon. member that the scheme houses at Tileba were built by the Roy Bond Construction Company. The hon. member also alleged that the same people who built the houses in Tileba had been given the contract for the construction of houses in Durban.

I did not say in Durban. I said that they had been given a contract for some other place, but I did not say in Durban.

Then I probably misunderstood the hon. member. In any case that contractor was not given a contract in Durban, but in Pretoria. The work of this contractor is of an excellent quality and if he tenders again and his tender is again the lowest one he will get another contract from my Department. My Department does not award contracts arbitrarily. The normal tender procedures are followed. But as far as this contractor is concerned, I can say that his work at Tileba cannot be criticized in any way. Neither at Tileba nor at Jan Niemand Park where the other contract was awarded to the contractor, can there be any criticism in regard to the quality of his work-in fact, he is one of the most satisfactory contractors with which my Department has had to deal. But what happened at Tileba. Just across the street there are sand quarries from which deliveries of sand are made. When the surface soil was examined, sand formations were found everywhere and nobody thought that there could be subterranean clay deposits present. The formation of the entire vicinity never gave any indication of this. Only after the houses had been built it was found that at a depth deeper than normal, there was moving clay—that was only after some of the houses had begun to crack. The cracks were caused by the presence of moving clay which was situated deeper underground than is normally the case. In any case, nothing like that had ever been expected in that vicinity.

In other words, there was no proper pre-investigation.

At what depth?

Surely hon. members are aware that in our country there are certain regions which are known for the presence of clay formations. There an investigation is carried out to a great depth. Then, again, there are other regions which are known for other formations, and normally investigation is not carried out beyond a certain depth. As I have already said, the clay formations at Tileba were found at a greater depth than normally revealed by investigations throughout the country in areas where there was no suspicion that clay may perhaps be present. In any case, immediately after it became known that the houses—there were 12 to 15 of them—were being affected by this moving clay, the Secretary for Community Development instructed that the occupants be informed that they would be released from their contracts of sale and that they could choose whether they wanted to occupy the houses on a lease basis until such time as the houses had been repaired and that they could then decide whether they wanted to buy, or whether they wanted to cancel the original sale transactions. Although all the occupants received this offer, only three of them elected to make use of the concession.

The people did not, of course, have another place to go to.

But they could elect to remain on a lease basis until the houses had been repaired. They could then decide whether they wanted to stay on on a lease basis, i.e. until such time as they could find somewhere else to go, or whether they wanted to buy. We would not have thrown any of them out. After all, we are not so inhuman as the hon. member imagines us to be. He must not make generalizations here in order to make people think that we are the most inhuman and the cruellest government out. The fact of the matter is that we are treating the people in an accommodating way.

The hon. member received a letter from a certain Mr. Van den Berg. Now, the fact of the matter is that Mr. Van den Berg was the only person in the whole scheme with whom we experienced problems. Nobody else there was a problem to us. He is the only person with whom we had problems. His problems were due to the fact that, after he knew that the house had begun to develop cracks, he made additional alterations and improvements to the house. He assessed the improvements at R1,424, but the technical officials of my Department said that those improvements were worth nothing more than R837. He did not want to give up the house, but he did want us to reduce the purchase price of the house by R2,600; either that or we were to pay him R1,400 for the improvements. His claims were absolutely unrealistic and totally unacceptable.

When he made those claims and when he was told that he could return his house and that he would be paid out R837 for the improvements to that house—the valuation placed on those improvements by the technical officers of my Department—he refused that offer and threatened to write to the Leader of the Opposition and the newspapers. That is how he ended up with the hon. member for Umlazi. [Interjections.]

So you offered him R340 off his bond?

The R340 which we allowed him was the estimated amount which it would have cost to repair the cracks in the house.

Why do you not give him the money? Where is he going to find R340?

There is no problem. There are other people who were placed in the same position after the houses were repaired. There are other people who would have had to pay a great deal more to repair their houses. There were relatively few cracks in his walls. Those other people were quite satisfied to have the amount added to the purchase price. It would have meant a small additional amount of a few cents per month on their payments. That is all it would have meant.

He did not have the money.

That gentleman had money enough to have unnecessary alterations and luxury improvements to the value of more than R1,400 made, which were in reality not worth more than R800 to any occupant. He is the last person who should complain. That is why, as far as Tileba is concerned, I want to state clearly that I reject absolutely the suggestion that there was any question of poor construction work. I now come to Yellowwood Park in Durban, and the blocks of flats there. I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) that, according to information which I received yesterday, all the flats except two have been leased at the new rentals.

In the one building?

No, in all of them. All the flats, except two, have now been leased at the revised rentals. I may just add that the calculation of the rentals made by the Community Development Board was originally based on a short-term redemption of the capital costs of the building, which were actually unrealistically high. That is where the increased rentals came from.

What are the new rentals?

I can furnish the hon. member with those particulars later. I am not certain at the moment. It is a decrease of approximately R18 or R20 per month per flat. That is merely because the redemption period has been calculated in a more realistic way. I want to make it clear now that, as far as the Yellowwood Park houses and flats in Durban are concerned, I am very dissatisfied with the quality of the construction work. I want to say at once that my Department was not directly responsible for it. It was part of the crash building programme which had to be dealt with at a time when my Department had at one stage to handle housing construction to the value of R9.5 million. On the approved establishment of the Department there were 55 approved posts in respect of professional officers. Of those 55 approved posts only 18 were filled. We simply could not get the people. The result was that the Department could not itself supervise and do the work. They had to give it out on contract. In the case of the construction work in Durban it was given out on contract to two professors who were associated with the engineering faculty of the University of Natal. On the basis of the reputation of these people in the engineering world, my Department of course assumed that they could rely on the work of these people and that it was not necessary for them to undertake careful supervision there, and that it could rather concentrate its supervision on other places. I want to state unequivocally here that those two gentlemen will never again, as long as I am Minister, get work from my Department. I must also add that the contractors there, particularly in the Yellowwood Park area, were given revised instructions by the consultants in respect of the foundations for the inside walls. Look at what they did. The original instructions were that there had to be normal foundations for the outside as well as for the inside walls. Then the consultants went and gave instructions, without consulting my Department, for the foundations for the inside walls to be omitted. The contractors did so. Now the inside walls are cracking, my Department is being held responsible and I must see to it that the matter is rectified. It is being considered whether we cannot institute a claim against these consultants in regard to this matter. These are the kind of problems one will come up against if one tries to provide dwellings on a large scale at a time when there is a shortage of dwellings, and when one does not have the staff to deal with everything themselves. However, that does not mean that general use is being made of “jerry built” methods, as the hon. member has said. Go and look at the schemes which my Department handles itself. Go and look at Bothasig. Go and look at Triomf in Johannesburg. Go and look at the other schemes which the Department handles itself. Go and look at the schemes in Port Elizabeth. Let one member tell me now that inferior building methods are being used there. No, I am satisfied that my Department is acting with the greatest circumspection. That it is being let down here and there by consultants, is unfortunately so, but we are trying to restrict that to a minimum.

The hon. member for Uitenhage made a plea for variety in respect of construction, larger areas for houses, the elimination of semi-detached houses, etc. As far as variety of construction is concerned, I want to say immediately that I agree with him wholeheartedly. In fact, I spoke about this subject in Port Elizabeth when I opened a housing scheme there. I made a very earnest appeal to local authorities to consult my Department and to draw up plans in order to bring about variety in their houses. But when the hon. member talks about larger floor areas for houses and the elimination of semi-detached houses, I want to say to him at once that we must remember that there is a cost aspect which goes hand in hand with this matter, and that it is of no use whatsoever to provide houses for people which those people will find too expensive. We in South Africa are still in the fortunate position that most of our people are able to live in single dwellings situated on reasonably-sized pieces of land, but ours is one of the few countries in the world where this is possible. With the population explosion which is taking place the time is coming when we shall, to an ever-increasing extent, have to live in semi-detached houses and in flats. There will simply be no alternative. We have to make provision for the development of the country, and for the increase in the population which is taking place, and for that reason we shall have to adjust our standards of living. In various European countries I saw how senior government officials on the same level as Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries of our Departments were living in small semi-detached houses. Nor were they those semi-detached houses which are attached on the one side only, but were those which were attached on both sides to other houses. We would prefer not to have that state of affairs here, but because of the costs we will not be able to eliminate it. I want to say that we should try as much as possible to retain the privacy of houses. We are trying as far as it is possible to protect the aesthetic aspect of house-building. At the same time we are trying as far as possible to keep the cost aspect so low that it is within the reach of the people.

The hon. member for Port Natal asked for a commission of inquiry into the operation of the Group Areas Act. He said that little heed was being given to human rights and human dignity. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that what the hon. member had to say here was absolute nonsense. It was merely a belated protest against a principal decision which had been taken by this Government years ago, it was merely a belated protest against a process which has been in progress for a long time and which the hon. member will not be able to stop, no matter how hard he tries. I want to tell him that where cases of actual hardships come to our attention we go out of our way to accommodate those people. It is of no use, as the hon. member did here, merely to say that we pay no heed to human dignity, that we do not concern ourselves about the rights of people. The hon. member must mention specific cases. He must bring those cases to my Department and I shall have each one investigated. But the hon. member has never come to me or my Department with a single case. What he does do, however, is come forward in this House with generalizations. The hon. member did in fact mention a few aspects which ought to receive attention and which are in fact receiving attention. However, they are not concerned only with the implementation of the Group Areas Act. The hon. member spoke about the high prices of sites at Isipingo. Those high prices are not in respect of sites which my Department dealt with, where Whites were bought out and where the sites were made available for Indians. Those prices are in respect of sites which were subsequently developed and which were made available to the Indian public. The hon. member must remember that Isipingo is a much-sought-after beach resort for the Indian community of the entire country. Since Whites have to pay very high prices for a seaside plot he must consequently not expect us to be able to treat the Indians in a different way. We cannot be expected to protect them so that they may obtain their seaside resorts at low prices, or that we should eliminate speculation entirely there. It cannot be done. There cannot be interference of such a nature with private initiative in the country. For if we do it in respect of the Indians then we must also do it in respect of the Whites.

There is another problem. Here the hon. member could perhaps be able to help to a greater extent than I could. In the Durban area there are quite a number of sites belonging to the Durban municipality. Those sites are being divided up into small groups and sold at very expensive prices—because the demand is great—to the Indians. I have already reported this to the Administrator of Natal and he is negotiating with the Durban City Council to see whether there is no solution to the problem, because, Sir, where land is owned publicly, where it is owned by a local authority it is neither fair nor right for the local authority to make irregular profits on that basis at the expense of the non-White community. That is what the Durban municipality is doing.

There is no excuse for that.

That is why I say that I hope the hon. member will help me in this respect because it falls outside the purview of my authority at the moment. I cannot intervene. The hon. member also said that Shallcross compares unfavourably with Chatsworth. I concede that that is so. But the hon. member must remember that Chatsworth is a tremendously large undertaking where contractors are given a large number of houses to build, whereas Shallcross is only a small project. When contractors are given large undertakings to complete they can render better service and, for the same price group, give the houses a better appearance than they are able to do in another place. Becuase I had already realized these facts and because my Department’s Secretary had already gone there to have a look, I have already given instructions for steps to be taken to try and improve the conditions at Shallcross. As far as the roads there are concerned, the hon. member must remember that we do not accept the through-road which the Durban City Council has built through Chatsworth as the standard for our residential areas. Nevertheless, as the area develops in due course proper provision will be made for the roads and the services there. These things are not always immediately forthcoming. In fact, many of our white residential areas only received their tarred roads and additional amenities long after the houses had been built.

Is that not putting things the wrong way round?

No. For years it has been the custom throughout the country to build the houses even though there are only gravel roads to drive on there. The roads are only tarred afterwards. This is the case everywhere and for all race groups. If we had to provide the services, etc., first, it is going to take even longer before the houses are built for which the hon. member pleaded so seriously the other day. Let us first supply the houses! Surely they are more important. To my way of thinking the house is much more important than the quality of the streets in which the motor cars have to drive.

The hon. member also said that there was no interest on the part of the Whites in Cato Manor. But I think the hon. member is wrong.

It was as a result of the interest which is in fact being displayed that I appointed a Government committee a short while ago to undertake the replanning of Cato Manor, Riverside, Prospect Hall and Wiggins Estate, and this year we shall spend R500.000 in Cato Manor, Riverside and Prospect Hall for the purchase of land. In the same area we shall spend R250,000 on supplying services. At Wiggins Estate we will spend R100,000 for services. We are doing so precisely because the demand is there for those areas to be developed. The Whites of Durban are waiting eagerly to take over that land as soon as the services are provided there. But here we are to a certain extent in the hands of the local authority again. I am not satisfied that the co-operation in regard to the provision of services which we are getting from the officials of the Durban municipality is all that it should be. I do not want to say any more about this matter.

The hon. member for Boksburg spoke about the problem of housing provision, particularly in regard to housing for the middle income group. He mentioned one important matter, i.e. the question of uniform building regulations. The S.A.B.S. has been working on this for a considerable time now and they have reached the stage where they hope to publish standard regulations shortly so that local authorities will only have to refer to those regulations in their regulations, and as a result of which there will be absolutely uniform regulations. The hon. member has told me that he could not be here to-day.

The hon. member for Parktown touched on two matters to which I want to refer. The one is the petition which I received from certain persons in regard to the purchase of houses by groups of immigrants. I could not quite make out whether the hon. member wanted me to prohibit this. In reality one cannot do so. Any competent person is at liberty—and a white immigrant is a competent person in a white area—to buy a house. We can do nothing about that, but we can step in where overcrowded conditions are developing. Cases have been brought to my attention where three or four families have jointly purchased a house and then created overcrowded conditions. There we can in fact step in. Investigations are being made and we will be able to act under the Slums Act if such overcrowded conditions were to develop.

The hon. member has also referred again to the delay in regard to the establishment of townships. The fact which he brought to my attention I have in turn brought to the attention of the Committee which I mentioned. I may just say that I have discussed this matter with the Administrators. They maintain that no unnecessary delays are taking place on their part and on the part of the town council as far as the laying-out of new township areas are concerned. I have consequently decided in collaboration with them that as an initial step we will constitute a fact-finding committee to collect all the facts and to establish how many available residential sites there are in the township areas of the country and into what price categories those building sites fall, and to establish what the procedure is in regard to the declaration of new township areas. The cases which the hon. member brought to my attention, and other cases, have been brought to the attention of this committee. It will take a little time to make the whole survey but as soon as we have all the particulars then this committee will report to me and to the Administrators and then we will discuss further steps in this regard.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) raised the question of persons in the sub-economic group who go over to the economic group and who then suddenly have to pay a considerably higher rental. The hon. member said that the increase is often more than the wage increase which they received. Theoretically this can be true, but in practice it does not actually work out like that, because a person living in a sub-economic house is not put out of that house when his income passes the sub-economic mark. He then goes on to a sliding scale and for every rand he earns per month which is in excess of the notch of the sub-economic group he must pay 30c extra in rental. In that way the rental is gradually pushed up until he then falls under the 3 per cent and 5 per cent categories which I introduced last year, but these are not sub-economic houses. This sliding scale system applies in the case of sub-economic houses. It may well be that a person who falls in the economic group, those earning more than R130 per month, can find himself in a difficult position. But we are going into that. These new scales have only recently been introduced. We are having them examined carefully and if improvements can be made we shall do so in due course.

The hon. member for Boland asked me why there had been a decrease of R4,320,000 on the Loan Account in respect of Community Development Council. There will always be these kind of fluctuations from time to time. It depends in the first place on the way in which we divide up the overall grant which we get from the Treasury amongst resettlement, urban renewal and housing provision. It also depends upon the number of areas in which the necessary preparatory work has been done to be able to undertake purchases or expropriations. This kind of fluctuation will therefore be a regular occurrence. It does not mean that the amount of work has been reduced; it simply means that we will as a result be able to do more in regard to housing.

The hon. member also expressed misgivings in regard to what he called the pattern of the sub-economic housing provision for Coloureds. He said that it should really be the exception to provide sub-economic housing for Coloureds and not the rule. The hon. member pleaded for house ownership schemes for the Coloureds, but it is in fact the rule to provide house-ownership schemes for them. During the past year alone altogether R5 million has been spent on the provision of housing which falls under the selling schemes for Coloureds. It is therefore the rule. Sub-economic housing is only provided to Coloureds who earn less than R60 per month and who cannot afford the economic houses, but because the salary and wage structure of the Coloureds is continually rising, the sub-economic groups will become smaller and smaller. As soon as a Coloured falls outside the sub-economic group then he comes into consideration for one of the houses under the selling scheme, of which there are many. The hon. member must drive about a little more in the Cape Flats and he will see them.

The hon. the Minister has given an interesting address to the Committee covering a very wide field of his portfolio as Minister of Community Development. Sir, there are certain matters that he raised which are of considerable importance. I think one of the important matters that he dealt with was the question of the housing commission’s programme and the efforts which are being made to provide a greater number of housing units for all racial groups. Sir, over the past two or three years we have seen a serious shortage of accommodation developing for the lower and middle income groups, and we share the Minister’s disappointment at some of the projects, particularly as regards the standard of some of the flats, which have been built by his Department in the Durban area. As far as housing is concerned, we know that important commissions have sat from time to time to discuss various aspects of the housing problem in this country. One such commission was the Piek Commission which dealt with the question of family allowances. That commission stressed the fact that the provision of housing was a prerequisite for developing a healthy family life and for producing bigger white families. The provision of housing is an important factor therefore in promoting the welfare of our people.

Sir, we all look forward to the time when the Minister will be able to withdraw rent control and when it will be left to private enterprise and free competition, but that will be impossible until such time as the backlog in the provision of housing has been undertaken and until such time as the elementary economic law of supply and demand once again prevails. In the interim it is obvious that people in the lower income groups in particular have to receive protection by way of rent control. It is hoped that in the not too distant future the Minister will be able to withdraw rent control to a certain extent so as to enable the law of supply and demand to prevail once again.

The hon. the Minister also referred to the action of certain types of landlords who owned business premises. The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that some of these landlords have seen fit to increase rentals very steeply upon the expiration of existing leases. The small shopkeepers, of whom there are considerable numbers in my constituency, and many thousands throughout the Republic, look to the hon. the Minister to issue a warning to those landlords not to raise their rentals to such an extent that it becomes necessary to impose rent control so as to protect their tenants.

Then I wish to say a few words about the working of the Department and of the various projects which fall under the Minister’s Department. I have in mind particularly the Department’s slowness in the handling of applications for the erection of important projects where funds are made available by the National Housing Commission to local authorities. I am thinking here particularly of organizations that wish to erect homes for the aged and other institutions of a welfare nature. As you know, Sir, a most comprehensive housing code was issued to all local authorities and guidance was given to them as to the method of dealing with applications for schemes for aged Whites, Coloureds and Indians undertaken by registered welfare organizations. It would appear, however, that somewhere in the administration there is a bottleneck in dealing with these various applications. This is an important matter because many of these organizations are formed with the specific purpose of establishing a particular home for the aged or a particular institution. They rely to a great extent upon public support, and it becomes very difficult for the management committees of these organizations to maintain a degree of enthusiasm when there are long, protracted dealings with the Department of Community Development and also with the local authorities.

I understand that the Department of Community Development had a steering committee of the National Building Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. On this committee the Departments of Social Welfare and Pensions, Health, Community Development and, of course, the C.S.I.R. were represented. The information that was furnished by this committee was circulated to local authorities, and the local authorities have obviously placed this information at the disposal of the various welfare organizations.

Sir, I believe that the hon. the Minstier will have to give more sympathetic consideration to the question of increasing the allocations in respect of the different categories of accommodation that may be provided. According to this report there are three categories of accommodation as far as homes for the aged are concerned. Provision is made under (a) for double occupancy, for self-contained and semidetached units for aged couples, and under (b) for single and double rooms for residents who are normally healthy but not able to manage for themselves, and under fc) provision is made for the accommodation of physically and mentally infirm residents in need of care and nursing. These organizations are subject to a formula in terms of which the per capita cost has to be restricted. Under category (a) the per capita amount per resident is R1,400; under category (b) the amount is R1,600 per resident, if it is a single room; in the case of a double room it is R1,350 per resident, and in the case of sick-rooms the amount is R1,300 per bed resident. Under category (c), the most expensive group of all, the per capita amount is R1,750 per resident. In the case of category (a) accommodation, if the income does not exceed R46 per month, these funds are made available at one-twentieth per cent. In the case of persons whose incomes do not exceed R50 per month the money is made available at ¾ per cent. In the case of the third group, namely those aged persons whose income exceeds R90 per month, the money is made available at the economic rate of interest.

The position is that in erecting a home for the aged it is most difficult to try to establish such a home with the ever-increasing cost of building that is taking place. Figures have recently shown that in 1961 building costs amounted to R4.50 per square foot, but it has now risen at the end of 1966, to R7 per square foot. Therefore these organizations are dependent on the Department. The local authorities are to blame to a certain extent, but they are also dependent on the Department for the expeditious handling of these applications for loans. Where a long period elapses, the continual increase in the building cost is to the disadvantage of the organizations concerned. It means that they are then called upon to raise a greater sum of money as their share of the cost of such a project. Therefore I think a method should be devised whereby these matters can be more expeditiously dealt with. For instance, in Durban I know of two homes for the aged in connection with which negotiations have been taking place for a number of years and still very little headway indeed has been made. There is a long-felt need for this type of accommodation. One of these organizations which plans to provide accommodation for over 450 residents has now been negotiating for over three years to try to obtain the loan and permission to proceed with the establishment rtf that much-needed home for aged persons. There is also an acute shortage of accommodation for the frail and infirm aged, and another organization which has been endeavouring to build a home to provide accommodation for nearly 190 frail and infirm old people have had a similar experience in their struggle to obtain the permission of the Department to proceed with their project. That project is one to which the public has made generous contributions, but many members of the public soon get tired when the organization takes such a long time before they can proceed with the establishment of such a home. [Time expired.]

I have listened to the discussion on this Vote for a long time, and if I have to sum up the debate, I must say that the opposite side of the House has placed the emphasis mostly on the housing shortage. That brings me at once to the question why there actually is such a housing shortage. Firstly, I feel that the shortage is due to the normal population increase, or the population explosion, as the Minister called it; and secondly, it is due to immigration; thirdly, to the expansion in the industrial field, where a great deal of housing had to be supplied. But then the hon. member for Durban (Point) introduced a fourth reason, to which I want to refer. He said that it was actually due to the resettlement of people, which the Government had to carry out in consequence of its ideological schemes. But if we take him at his word, and I would agree that there is in fact a housing shortage, we should say that that shortage is due to a fifth reason. This is that the previous government failed to do its duty to the people by providing adequate housing. But if one says that, hon. members on the opposite side say, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) also said the other day, that there was a war going on. That is the only reason they want to advance, but that old horse has become so hackneyed that I do not want to spend any time on it. If one looks at the hon. member and all the dust he is raising here, I actually want to say that it is no more than a windstorm; and if I say that he is the hon. member for Durban (Point), then I should add that it is more wind than point. The actual reason why hon. members on the opposite side accuse the Government of not providing enough housing for the people, is that they want to cover up the fact that they neglected their duty scandalously.

I want to ask the hon. members on the opposite side, and in particular the hon. member for Durban (Point), in view of the fact that they placed so much emphasis on the fact that the Government had to provide housing because its separate development legislation requires that approximately 40 per cent of those houses shall be allocated to people who have to be resettled: Are they opposed to the fact that those people have to be resettled? I hope he will reply to that, but he will never reply by saying that he is in favour of it or against it. He will never say that, because this Government has to clear up the mess his Party made. They were the ones who allowed the situation to develop on the Cape Flats where there was a house behind every shrub, built of hessian or paper or cardboard, in which several families lived. They allowed those complexes to develop around the cities. Their deceased leader said: “Let things develop”, and they let things develop anyhow. Because those people never applied for houses —because there were no houses and one does not apply for something which does not exist —the magnitude of the shortage was never placed on record. But now that this Government has increased the standard of living so much and has provided houses for those people to live in, every non-white with a family comes along and asks for a house; and quite rightly too, because we have provided houses,170,000 houses, for those people. And yet the hon. member says that we have not provided enough houses for Whites. But since 1948 we have provided 100,000 houses for Whites. If one adds up these two figures—altogether 270,000 houses—and one refers to the hon. member’s own words, namely that 40 per cent was intended for resettled persons, it leaves 67,000 houses which we had to build for occupation by people who lived in hovels and under bushes as a result of their policy. If there had been no need to resettle them, those 67,000 families could have lived in decent houses long ago. For that reason I blame this housing shortage largely on that Party on the opposite side, and the charge they level against this Government, I fling back in their teeth. If they had done their duty, there would have been no need for us to accommodate all those people. [Interjection.] I said the hon. member was more wind than point, but if I look at him he appears to be more flesh than spirit. He is not a very great spirit either, because he does not even have the decency to sit up if he wants to say something; he is asleep.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. I want to continue by saying that in view of the fact that this Government provided housing to the tune of 100,000 houses for Whites, and the Minister has just announced that he is still doing so at a rate of approximately 7,000 to 8,000 a year, I do not think the Opposition is entitled to accuse the Government of not doing enough for housing. I feel the Government has gone out of its way to care for people who were neglected by the United Party, those thousands of people in the slums, whom we have had to resettle. And yet they have the temerity to say that we are not doing enough.

I want to conclude by saying that if ever there was a government which did something for housing it is this Government, which has gone out of its way to help to provide houses for the less privileged.

Before concluding I just want to make a request to the hon. the Minister. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not consider expediting the scheme which has already been commenced with at Kimberley, along the road from Kimberley to the Free State, because the housing shortage in Kimberley is acute. Kimberley is expanding tremendously, and we should like to see that scheme expedited. A second question I should like to ask the Minister is whether more houses cannot be built at the Ganspan settlement. We have the land there, and we should like these two projects to be expedited. [Time expired.]

There are some matters I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The first is actually a matter affecting the hon. member for Peninsula, but I raise it with his permission and because the people approached me. During the past weeks I have had quite a few dealings with members of the Indian community, amongst whom the story is being spread that Ryelands Estate, which is now the proclaimed Indian area of Cape Town, will be proclaimed a Coloured area because it is a small spot in the midst of the large Coloured complex. As I understand, this has caused great alarm. As the hon. the Minister knows himself numerous people have bought land and built houses in Ryelands Estate since it was proclaimed an Indian area. Some business people in the Indian community spent a great deal of money on their houses, and now there is concern that they may be re-settled once again. I should like to have a reply from the Minister in that regard. I have my own opinion on the matter and I have given it to those people, but I should like to hear officially from the Minister whether there are any such intentions.

In the same connection—and this gives one an indication of what lies behind everything; in my view what lies behind the rumours is of a dual nature. The first is a deliberate attempt to cause unrest, and the second is an attempt at exploitation. There are people who own more than one plot. I know of one person who bought 16 plots years ago. They have been given to understand that if it becomes a Coloured area, a ceiling will be placed on the sale price of the plots, and they are told that they should rather sell them quickly. It is therefore clear what may be at the back of the rumours. Moreover, the people are given to understand, those who own more than one plot, that a ceiling will be placed on it, because where a Coloured housing scheme is developed people are not allowed to buy more than one plot, which we can understand, of course: this is to prevent speculation. But as the Minister rightly pointed out, private initiative cannot be curbed altogether, as in the case of Isipingo. I should like the Minister to explain that aspect to us.

There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister once again. I did bring it to the attention of his predecessor. In 1960, after I had taken part in the debate on this Vote, the then Minister gave this undertaking. He dealt with various aspects of resettlement and he gave the undertaking that no person would be put out of his house or told to leave his house before alternative housing was available. I should like to bring it to the Minister’s attention that at the time when District Six was under consideration, I made representations to the committee of enquiry to the effect that it should remain a Coloured area because it was traditionally a Coloured area. District Six was then in fact proclaimed a Coloured area. In my view it should not have been proclaimed a Coloured area, but a slum area which should be re-planned, and it goes without saying that as it would then be demolished progressively —because surely one could not renovate it— the people would have to be re-settled somewhere, and the agitation that has arisen could then quite possibly have been avoided. When District Six was proclaimed a Coloured area, people who had absolutely nothing to do with the matter and who had no interest in it, but who were merely seeking publicity and perhaps also had ulterior motives, amongst them the former Mayor of Cape Town, made Press statements about it, in which it was stated that people would be forced from their houses and that the fruit stalls on the Grand Parade would disappear and the flower sellers be driven from Adderley Street, etc. At the time the present Minister’s predecessor emphasized once again that people would not be given notice to leave their houses until alternative housing was available. But I can assure the hon. the Minister, particularly with a view to a meeting which is to be held in Cape Town to-night, as I understand, that it will be appropriate to place on record that this is still the policy of the Department and that if so-called disqualified persons find themselves in a proclaimed area which is earmarked for another group, no action will be taken before alternative housing is available for them. I can assure the Minister that it will eliminate great concern.

I give you that assurance right now.

I accept that. I know that is the policy, but the hon. the Minister would be surprised to know how many people enquire about it continually, throughout my entire constituency and in particular in Cape Town. I have been living here for the past 30 years, and people know me and come to see me at home, and they do not know when they will have to move. Time and again this is the result of the fact that people exploit the matter for political purposes, or, if he is an owner, to persuade him to sell at the amount they want to pay for it, because the owner has to move in any event.

Then there is the question of mosques in areas proclaimed white areas. I know this is a delicate problem. Under the religious creed of the Moslems the land on which a mosque is standing becomes consecrated land once that mosque has been consecrated. That land may therefore not be alienated. I regret that the hon. member for Karoo is absent, because he will know about the debacle which took place in Kimberley some years ago over such a mosque. I am prepared to discuss this matter privately with the hon. the Minister. I have done a considerable deal of thinking about this, and I have also talked to the imams and the sheiks of the Moslem communities. Once the replanning and redevelopment of South End in Port Elizabeth, for example, have been completed, one will find that if the mosque is left standing there, the Moslems will have to build a new mosque. Under their religious creed, however, they may accept no price of sale for the present mosque. The hon. Minister will have to think about this, and if he feels that I can be of any assistance to him, I would gladly discuss the matter with him.

Previous speakers referred to the quality of the work performed by contractors, and the hon. the Minister has already referred to those speeches. My father was a builder for many years, and as I have therefore some knowledge of the matter, I can see the problem in this connection. But there is another aspect to which the Minister and his Department may give careful consideration, if they are not already doing so, and that is the way in which local authorities supervise the execution of the building work. In this regard I am thinking of two areas in my constituency. The first is Bethelsdorp, where there is a sub-economic housing programme consisting of semi-detached houses. I carried out a personal investigation there. I would not discuss a matter here unless I had personal experience of it. One should not make allegations here on hearsay. Well, in the case of Bethelsdorp there are such cracks in the walls that there is virtually no privacy between the occupants of one semi-detached house and the occupants next-door. I do not think those cracks are due to the presence of a clay layer, because the soil there is quite different. It appears that the work there was clearly of a very poor quality. I must admit that this particular scheme was completed quite a while ago. Perhaps the quality of the work there has already been brought to the attention of the Minister, and better supervision is now exercised. I can give the Minister the assurance, however, that this kind of thing did occur. Jerry building is an easy way for contractors to make money if they are building for the Government. Or could it be that the municipality concerned does not exercise proper supervision? [Time expired.]

If one looks at the report of the Department of Community Development, one wishes in the first place to thank the Minister and the Department for it. But the report is old. In this regard we appreciate, of course, that the Department’s other commitments do not make it possible for it to publish a report more regularly. What is striking, however, is the fact that this Department started as a small subdivision of the Department of Housing and that it has since expanded to the point where it is the largest Department in the Public Service at present. The Department of Community Development is the Department which has the greatest effect on our national life at present. It plays a most important part. In the field of housing it is responsible for the welfare and prosperity of all four population groups in the Republic. Having regard to this, we have to admit that the Department is carrying out this great and responsible task most successfully. No matter what population group we may consider, we shall see what a great task the Department has already fulfilled in providing housing to our people. It is a vast task, and the person who would say that there is no longer a housing shortage would most certainly be a stranger in Jerusalem. On the other hand, the person who says that nothing is being done is most certainly blind and is going about the country with his eyes shut.

On this occasion I should like to raise the constitution of rent boards with the Minister. A new policy is being applied in this regard, in that part-time rent boards are being abolished and replaced by full-time rent boards in respect of certain areas. Thus, for example, the part-time rent boards for Brakpan, Boksburg, Springs, Benoni and Nigel have been abolished, and in their stead a fulltime rent board has been established to cover all these East Rand towns. It is a vast area which has to be covered by this full-time rent board. Germiston has now been grouped with Johannesburg, whereas both Alberton and Kempton Park still have part-time rent boards. I want to ask the Minister whether he does not also think that the time has come to investigate this matter thoroughly—I mean a new demarcation of areas. We are experiencing problems under the present dispensation, and we are convinced that a new demarcation of areas—those towns which belong together and which have common interests should be joined together—will enable fulltime rent boards to function more efficiently.

I also want to bring certain illegal practices to the attention of the Minister, practices which are still taking place at the moment. We have applied rent control to certain buildings. We are making every attempt to meet this housing shortage. But what do we find? What are unscrupulous persons doing to exploit this housing shortage? We find that where mines on the East Rand are no longer operating, and where those mining houses are now put up for sale, companies are buying in those mining houses. And what do they do? Instead of going to the rent board to obtain a rent determination, and then letting those houses, they enter into a hire-purchase contract with such a person. The hire-purchase contract is as follows: The person’s rent will come to R20 a month, but then a further R20 a month is charged as an option fee, in order that that person may eventually become the owner of the house. Then this person also has to pay the municipal rates. By this method these companies are exploiting our people blatantly. I want to ask: Is a person entitled to charge a monthly option fee if he sells such a house to a person? Should a term not be specified after which that option will lapse, say three months? This is one of the things we are now confronted with. I hope and trust that the hon. the Minister will give attention to this matter, and that we shall put paid to this illegal practice which is rearing its head on the East Rand, particularly as regards the mining houses which are now becoming empty. The option fee these people have to pay every month is something which should be nipped in the bud.

I have another matter which I also want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister this afternoon. It is a new suggestion, and I do not know whether it has been made before. While we are providing housing to all our different income groups, we find that the greatest problem newly-wed couples are experiencing nowadays is the following: As soon as they have acquired the house, they experience tremendous financial problems to furnish it properly, as a result of the high rate of interest applicable to furniture at present, and also to refrigerators and electric stoves. Has the time not come that the Deparment should go even further to help our young people and our less privileged persons in the various income groups by seeing whether they cannot provide furnished housing to these people, in order that it may not be necessary for them to pay that high rate of interest on furniture, refrigerators and electric stoves? If we can succeed in providing furnished houses to these people at the same rate of interest, namely 8 per cent or 9 per cent, we shall be conferring a benefit on them. It will be a good deed to provide these good families, white families which we would so much like to see in the country, with furnished houses. Nowadays hardly anybody can afford to bring a child into the world if he wants to start a household. I make this plea to the Minister. If it can be done, it will be a great step forward. [Time expired.]

I want to offer the hon. member who has just sat down my congratulations on his concluding thought. We on this side of the House often have to listen to the ideals of members on the opposite side, ideals that can never be realized. But it is the Minister and his Department that are able to translate a policy into reality. I should like to discuss this Government’s group areas policy this afternoon. I want to test the policy by the facts of reality, especially in connection with my constituency. As long ago as 1956 there was an investigation into group areas in parts of Simonstown. Then, in 1961, the first white group area was declared in the constituency. That was Tokai, Westlake and Pollsmoor. That is the southernmost part of the historical Constantia Valley. It is one of the oldest agricultural areas in South Africa. Originally, as hon. members know, it was exclusively an agricultural area, but now, with the shortage of land and properties, it is developing into a residential area of a high standard. As long ago as seven years, in 1961, it was declared a white group area. At that time there were three Government institutions for non-Whites in the area. To-day there are no fewer than seven. In September, 1966, I put a series of questions in this House and obtained the necessary information in order to determine that at that stage there were 2,634 inmates in those Government institutions. In addition there were approximately 700 non-Whites in the two Divisional Council institutions in the same area. But what is the position to-day? At the Klaasjagersberg Reformatory there are 150 non-Whites and 20 non-white members of staff. At the Porter Reformatory there are 704 non-Whites and 134 members of staff. At the Westlake Prison there are 650 non-Whites and a staff of 13. At the Westlake Institution for mentally deranged persons there are 455 nonwhite inmates and 187 members of staff. At the Westlake detention hostel there are 28 inmates and seven members of staff. At the training college for non-white prison wardens there are 36 persons and seven members of staff. This represents a large increase in the number of non-Whites in this white area. Today there are 4,211 non-Whites in the area which has been declared white. There are 525 members of staff. If one adds the two Divisional Council institutions there are a further 761 non-Whites and more than 400 members of staff in those institutions, that is to say, a total increase of more than 1,500 non-Whites since September, 1966.

If one were to remove all the deviates from your constituency, it might become Nationalist, and what would happen to you then?

Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. the Minister ought to know that the policy of this side of the House is social and residential separation. I now want to refer to another Government development, namely the Pollsmoor Prison. At the moment there are 2,098 non-Whites in that prison. The proposed development programme for that prison is to make provision for 3,132 nonwhite inmates and more than 300 members of staff. This is something which is happening in one of the two areas of my constituency which have been declared white. It is a change in Government policy which is affecting the whole character of the constituency. It is a violation of the principle of group areas. In my opinion it is a double standard which is being applied by the Government, because the ordinary Coloured in a white area has to move, but the Government can establish Government institutions for non-Whites in those white areas. It is definitely a double standard, just as in the case of the combating of inflation. The man in the street has to save in order to combat inflation, but Government expenditure increases from day to day.

I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to investigate this state of affairs in the area to which I have referred, to stop any further expansion of non-white institutions in that area, and to remove the nonwhite institutions in that area to non-white areas. Lastly I want to ask the Minister very respectfully to sell the surplus land in the area which at present belongs to the Government to the Cape Divisional Council, so that the Council may erect a housing scheme for Whites there.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that there is agreement in this House on the fact that the country is facing a housing shortage. That is why one is so pleased to know that the Department of Community Development is doing everything in its ability to make up this leeway. In speaking of a leeway, one should have regard to certain factors which caused it. I do not want to go back to the days of the United Party and their sins, which had the result that they handed over, amongst other things, a leeway in the field of housing to this Government. I would rather deal briefly with additional factors, and in the first place I want to refer briefly to a process which we find everywhere in our cities nowadays, namely re-zoning. This re-zoning involves widening streets and building expressways, which have the result that numerous hotels, dwellings and flats fall by the wayside. Not only re-zoning but also the tremendous flow of Whites and non-Whites from the rural areas to the urban areas, have contributed to the housing shortage. Another factor is the deterioration or unserviceableness of many old houses of corrugated iron and wood which were erected in the past. As you yourself know, Sir, those houses are not proof against the weather in the coastal regions. All those houses have to be replaced.

But now I want to mention the most important contributing factor, and that is the failure of certain city councils to use the facilities and money made available to them by the State. I am thinking in particular of those city councils which approve of the Opposition’s policy and which have always presented an obstacle to the implementation of the Group Areas Act and our apartheid policy.

Are you dissatisfied with the housing position in Port Elizabeth?

Yes, wait a moment; I am coming to that. I shall deal with that in a moment. The hon. member for Port Natal said that one of the reasons for the shortage should be sought in the resettlement of certain groups. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Newton Park whether he is opposed to the removal of the non-Whites from the white residential areas between Holland Park and Kensington? Does the hon. member want those Coloureds to be returned to those residential areas; are you dissatisfied —and I am now speaking to the hon. member for Walmer—because we removed the non-Whites from Lee Plek and are now making that residential area White? Are you opposed to the fact that we have converted the Stewart residential area, in your own constituency, which used to be a non-White area, into a white residential area? Would you have us return the thousands of Natives who lived in Dassiekraal, adjoining Sidwell, in my own constituency, and whom we resettled elsewhere, to the white residential area? [Interjection.] You will get your turn. I challenge you, as a representative of Port Elizabeth …

Order! The hon. member must please address the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. member for Newton Park the following question: Is it not true that your party’s policy would have given rise to mixed residential areas, such as those which developed in Port Elizabeth (North) and in Port Elizabeth (Central)? Is your party willing that we should bring back all those non-Whites …

Order When the hon. member speaks of “you” he is speaking of the Chairman.

I want to ask the hon. member for Newton Park whether he wants us to bring back all those non-Whites? If the removal of non-Whites from white areas was a sin committed by the National Party, I should like the hon. member for Newton Park to go back to Port Elizabeth and to tell the people there that the sins committed by the National Party were making the white residential areas white and implementing the Group Areas Act.

But you have just said that the city council of Port Elizabeth does not use the facilities!

I should like the hon. members for Newton Park and Walmer to join us and assist us in order that justice may be done to those groups which are poorly housed, as one finds in the slum areas, conditions which the hon. member for Port Natal wants there. Does the hon. member for Port Natal want those conditions to continue, those miserable conditions of crying poverty and misery which existed under the previous government? Here I have some photographs taken on the shores of Korsten Lake. There is a slum area with more than 2,000 Coloureds.

Your party has been in power for 20 years—why do you not put these things right?

Does the hon. member know how those slum areas came into being? They came into being during the war years, when you used Jan Hofmeyr to create conditions here which could be a breeding ground for Communism in South Africa. [Interjections.] If the National Party had not come into power in 1948, the hon. member would also have been governed by communists to-day.

I should now like to turn to the hon. the Minister with regard to certain matters. Before I do so, however, I just want to tell the hon. member for Newton Park this: In the past six years the National Party has spent R172 million on housing, whereas the United Party, over a period of 18 years, spent only R54 million. That means that in six years the National Party spent R118 million more than the United Party Government spent over a period of 18 years.

And there are still not enough houses.

I should now like to make a plea to the Minister for our lower income groups, for whom we have to provide housing. There is no need for me to waste my time on the Opposition. They received one talent, and they have buried that. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to what the Chairman of the Housing Committee wrote in Port Elizabeth. He wrote the following (translation)—

That is what the Chairman of the Housing Committee of the Port Elizabeth City Council said. He said that unfortunately they could no longer provide houses for those people. But do you know, Sir that since 1934 that city council has never applied for a sub-economic housing scheme? If the city council had done its duty and had applied for a scheme for the lower economic groups, we would not have been in that quandary to-day. Section 11 (4) of the Housing Act provides that—

In other words, the National Housing Commission—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that the Housing Act of 1966 is enforced. Secondly, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to revise the income limit of the low-income group. [Time expired.]

I do not want to enter into the local war at Port Elizabeth, but I would like to remind the hon. member who has just sat down that the Nationalist Party has contributed nothing to housing. It happens to be the public’s money and I think it is wrong to say that the Nationalist Party has done this, that and the other thing. The Nationalist Party has not spent a single cent on housing; it happens to be the public’s money. The Government has merely directed how the money should be spent.

In dealing with the provision of housing we must, of course, accept the fact that there is a shortage of housing not only in South Africa but all over the world, and that there are various ways of tackling this problem. Here in this country we find that there is a terific delay in establishing housing schemes. We hear from time to time of crash programmes but nothing really happens. It takes years before we see anything developing. We know that recently a new prefabricated township called Bothasig was established here in the Peninsula. I think that is just about the quickest bit of work I have seen for a long time. I do not know whether that is the ideal type of house. I think only time will tell. In addition to the prefabricated houses, you also have houses constructed of brick there. Only time will tell whether these prefabricated timber houses are going to withstand the weather conditions. Sir, the hon. the Minister has said, and I think it is common knowledge, that it is not the Government’s duty to provide all the housing required in the country. We know that the people who are the real sufferers at the present moment are those in the middle income group. Sir, you will recall that in the early days private enterprise did most of our house-building but to-day things have changed. If you want to lay out a township you are involved in tremendous costs. You acquire a piece of ground; then you have to lay it out and build roads, access roads; you have to provide a water reticulation system and a sewerage system; you have to provide the open spaces and sites for schools. I do not know what the position is in the rest of the country but in the Cape a percentage of the plots must be endowed for the township itself. The establishment of such a township becomes very, very costly, and the would-be house-owner finds that he has to pay a substantial amount for his plot.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, in order to encourage the would-be house owner to build, his Department, in order to expedite the building of houses, would not accept the responsibility of laying out the township and then leaving it to private enterprise to develop it. Sir, the hon. the Minister smiles, but the Government could probably acquire the ground much more cheaply either by expropriation or in some other way, and I feel certain that the Government would not have to hand over a certain number of plots for endowment, although naturally open spaces will have to be provided. Then, Sir, there is also another point of view that must be borne in mind when we discuss townships. When we contemplate the establishment of a township we usually go miles outside of the city and select what we regard as a beautiful site for a township for the middle income group. We always forget that these people have to travel considerable distances in order to get to their work. His travelling expenses make it very costly for the owner to live in such a township. I would like to prevail upon the hon. the Minister to look for ground closer to the cities and when he begins his urban renewal schemes to do a substantial amount of vertical development. Hon. members opposite usually ask us what the United Party did when we were in power, but I would remind them that Schotsche Kloof was developed under the United Party Government years ago before the war. Then we also have large blocks of flats in District Six, and in Q-Town in Athlone you will find that there are some very large blocks of flats that were developed before the war. Vertical development is therefore nothing new. I think the hon. the Minister will have to make a special effort to house the middle income group closer to the cities in which they work. Here I would like to quote what is being done by the Railway Administration for example. The Railway Administration has over the years accepted the responsibility for housing its workers, and they have very fine housing schemes. You do not find the Railway Administration building a lot of new houses for its workers; instead of building houses the Railway Administration acquires houses all ready built and in that way assists them.

Sir, I would like to say a few words about District Six. I know that this is a highly contentious subject. We know that that area has been frozen and that the hon. the Minister has set up a committee to investigate the development of District Six. I think we are due for a report from that particular committee. The people living there are not very happy at the prospect of having to move. We know that it is Government policy to move them from District Six, but these people would like to know how long they are going to be there and where they are going. The majority of them are Malays. They would like to know whether the Minister is going to provide the necessary Mosques in the new area to which they are going to be moved. They would like to be assured that they are going to receive compensation for the Mosques which have been established in District Six.

They cannot take compensation; it is against their religion.

I was not talking to the hon. member; I was talking to the hon. the Minister. Sir, these churches cost a lot of money. Furthermore, at the present moment there is a new valuation taking place in Cape Town. The Minister has set the basic valuation of properties in District Six and these people would like to know whether, when the new valuations are made, the Minister will accept a higher rate on the basic valuations. Then there is also the position of white owned property that Coloured persons have occupied and have moved out voluntarily. They, the white property owners would like to know whether Coloureds will be allowed to occupy those properties on a temporary basis until the Minister has completed his plans or whether these properties are to be left unoccupied and to deteriorate. These are things these people would like to know. I am pleased to hear that there is going to be a meeting to-night at which officials of the Department will address the people from District Six. I hope that the officials will be able to answer the questions which will be put to them. I would like to point out that the people in District Six are not a lot of rebels. I am satisfied from the inquiries I have made that they are accepting the Governments’ decision. They regret what the Government is doing to them but they want to feel that wherever they are put, they are not going to be at a disadvantage. [Time expired.]

I rise to associate myself with an observation made by the hon. the Minister this afternoon, which I am personally convinced is in the national interests, and most timeous. This is the remark that the hon. the Minister was getting the impression that as far as the private sector was concerned, I presume that was what he meant, the tendency was developing to claim unnecessary luxury as far as housing was concerned. I say this particularly in the light of certain circumstances as far as our national economy is concerned. Recently we also heard from the Administrator of the Cape Province that local bodies were finding it very difficult, if possible, to attract funds from the private sector in the form of loans. Here I have an article from Die Beeld of 23rd April, 1967, which provides further evidence of this. It refers to a survey made of 232 families in Johannesburg with an income of less than R5,000 a year, who spent on an average more than R103 a year in excess of their incomes.

The survey was carried out by the Economic Research Bureau of the University of Stellenbosch. It was found, furthermore, that the overdrafts decreased gradually as the incomes became higher. Thus, for example, the average family with an income of less than R2,000 a year spends R142 a year more than it earns. The family with an income of R2,000 to R3,000 a year spends R188 more. The family with an income of R3,000 to R4,000 a year spends R28 more, and those with an income of R4,000 to R5.000 spend R54 more. Where it is hardest to make ends meet, according to the finding of this survey, is in the lower income groups, and this relates particularly to two items on the private budget, namely food and housing. What we have to do with here may be expressed in the words of a pioneer in the field of industrial development in this country, who one day remarked that if we had invested somewhat less in bricks, we would to-day have had a greater share in the gold of this country and also in its mineral riches. I should like to underline that and tell the Minister that I am in complete agreement with him as far as this timeous warning is concerned. This also reminds one of the element in our society which is more interested in the colour and model of a motor car than in its performance. It is not the external appearance of the dwelling or house that counts, but the spirit inside that house and the rational way in which life outside and around that house is organized by the head of that family.

I think it has become time to issue a word of warning to our general public in this connection, namely that we should abandon the false norms of prestige value and social status which are nowadays too easily and too readily coupled to a dead brick house, if we want to prove allegiance and loyalty to this country and its national needs and its development in the more profound sense of the word. I think the Minister has rendered a great service in these times in which we are living, and I hope and trust that in course of time, as this negative phenomenon becomes more evident in our national life, he will not hesitate to lay a finger on it and to point it out to us more frequently. If we take into consideration that at present a comparison is made … and this is the second standpoint the hon. the Minister adopted, and with which I want to associate myself completely, and in this regard I also want to express the hope that he and his Department will carry out a further investigation in this connection and will see whether we cannot to a large extent find a solution to our housing problem in this, namely the preconstruction or prefabrication of houses, as he called it.

At present information is available which indicates that in capital costs alone this building method means a saving of approximately one third, not even to mention the additional interest burden to be carried by that family foR15 years. It may be asked whether it does not mean interference with the private rights of the individual. I want to respond to that with the observation that we should take care that what is actually intended for the education of our children and the more fruitful use of leisure time is not all absorbed, and this to the extent of a deficit in the case of people with an annual income of R5,000. This indicates that our nation is undergoing an erosion process, and particularly on the spiritual front. We cannot leave it to the State to take the sole responsibility in respect of the education and in particular the post-school and university education of our children, and if we continue at this pace and incur deficits on our annual incomes, where are the means to come from to meet our commitments on the preparation of our youth in this country honourably, as parents should? To me it seems to be a reality that we are already wrongly allowing investments in and spending on raw bricks in our private budgets, instead of investments in developing the spirit of the youth of this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, because housing is such an important factor in the rapidly developing country in which we live, I think we all listened with great interest this afternoon to the hon. the Minister’s exposition of what his Department was doing to provide adequate housing for the Whites in South Africa, and the great task he has tackled to eliminate the housing shortage purposefully and in every possible way. I also know that the hon. the Minister will be amenable to suggestions from both sides on how to make a contribution to the further expansion of the provision of housing, not only by his own Department but also by private concerns. With reference to what he said some time ago, namely that all financial concerns should receive an opportunity to make a contribution to the provision of housing in this country, I want to ask him whether it is not possible for him, through his Department, to form a liaison with the Department of Finance and his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, in order to see whether it is not possible to amend the Financial Institutions Act in such a way that in future building societies will also be able to play an active part in the provision of housing. Is it not possible for the Act to be amended in such a way that building societies, just like other financial institutions, for example insurance companies, may also buy land and initiate large-scale housing projects? I do not know whether it is possible to amend the Act in this way, but it is something which has been suggested to me and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to investigate this. At the moment, as I construe the Act, building societies cannot buy land, but insurance companies can in fact do so. As we know, building societies have vast funds lying fallow. Is this not perhaps a profitable method of utilizing these funds in future, in order to help to meet the housing shortage? We all know that the building societies of South Africa have made a tremendous contribution to the provision of housing in this country in the past, by means of housing loans and mortgages. If the Act can be amended in this way, is it not possible that they may also make a tremendous contribution in this field, in the private sector, to ameliorate our housing shortage, for example by building houses and flats themselves on the land bought by them and by making available the accommodation provided in this way at a reasonable price?

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister, now that more and more attention is being devoted to the shortage of housing in this country and the methods employed to ameliorate it, whether he cannot perhaps tighten up building control even further as far as non-essential building projects in our cities are concerned. I was in Johannesburg last week, and I was surprised to see how huge buildings were still being erected virtually overnight. The question occurs to one whether all these buildings are really essential.

Then I should also like the hon. the Minister to give me some further information in respect of the progress made with the proposed business centre in Fordsburg, because this affects the entire question of the resettlement of Indian dealers, not only in my own constituency, which will be affected to a considerable extent, but also in many other Rand constituencies. How much progress has been made with the expropriation of premises in Fordsburg and what stage of planning has been reached as regards the lay-out of the entire business complex? The Whites of the white proclaimed suburbs of Johannesburg look forward anxiously to the resettlement of the Indians, but we also know that under the present circumstances, as I understand, at the most 30 more Indian dealers can be resettled in Lenasia if they are still to make a proper living there. Alternative business accommodation, as the Minister also explained last year, will have to be found elsewhere if all the Indians cannot be accommodated in Lenasia. We are therefore of the opinion that Fordsburg is the suitable place which should be developed to absorb these Indian dealers. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what number of Indian dealers could be settled in Fordsburg in future and whether there are any possibilities for further expansion in order that all Indian dealers who are now distributed throughout the Johannesburg complex may eventually be absorbed there. I would also appreciate it very much if the hon. the Minister could give us some further information on the nature of the Indian business complex to be developed in Fordsburg. Will it consist of isolated business buildings, or will it be a coherent business centre? I think the Whites of Johannesburg would also appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could give the House an indication of when the actual construction of the business complex will be com menced with, and if he could inform us how long it will take to complete the complex.

I also want to deal with the re-settlement of Indian families who are still living in the white suburbs of Johannesburg. I know that some 700 of these families have already been resettled in Lenasia, but there are still some 1,100 left, as I understand. Of those Indians there are still quite a few in my constituency. The Indians are most unwilling to move to Lenasia. They contend that there will not be adequate facilities for them in Lenasia. I do not know whether that is the position, but it appears to me that the time has now come for the Government to exert pressure on the Johannesburg City Council for the incorporation of Lenasia with the Johannesburg Municipality, in order that better facilities may be made available for the development of Lenasia. At the moment the population of Lenasia is between 5,000 and 6,000 strong, but in my view the capacity of the Lenasia residential area is unlimited, as there must be some thousands of acres available for further development. I want to say that most of the Indians living in Lenasia are nevertheless working in Johannesburg. It is therefore no more than fair that the Johannesburg City Council should accept the responsibility for Lenasia and for the development of that area.

Finally, I want to come to the question of urban renewal, which was so thoroughly dealt with by the hon. member for Benoni. I just want to say that I appreciated the Minister’s announcement that he intends sending a mission overseas to study urban renewal projects there. I also saw in a newspaper that later this year a great international congress on urban renewal will take place in Toronto. I want to plead with the Minister that if he himself cannot go he should send a very high-ranking official from his Department to attend this Congress, because I think that in future, in view of the opportunities this country has, South Africa will probably be able to play a leading role on the African Continent as far as urban renewal is concerned. In South Africa it is essential that we should have clarity on the financing of urban renewal projects, for example, and particularly on the financial relations between local governments and the Central Government. In the United States, for example, the Federal Government finances certain projects to the amount of two-thirds of the total costs of a project. Perhaps we could go and learn from the rest of the world in regard to this matter, at the Congress. I want to make a very strong plea to the Minister that he should consider sending a strong delegation overseas in connection with urban renewal.

Without further ado I want to begin where the hon. member for Turffontein left off, namely with the question of town renewal. Well, I whole-heartedly agree with him that this matter has to be tackled in all seriousness. It has already been decided that a mission will go to the congress in Toronto, but as far as other plans are concerned we are not absolutely clear about them as yet. Consequently I do not want to say anything more in this regard now. As soon as I have had an opportunity of discussing the entire matter with my colleagues in the Cabinet, I shall make a further announcement. But that we are going to do something drastic this year, something important, is very certain. As regards Lenasia, I may inform him that I have had discussions with the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal and with the City Council of Johannesburg. At present there is greater clarity, also as a result of the discussions, as regards the planning of the entire Lenasia area and consequently the City Council of Johannesburg is now prepared to incorporate Lenasia in the Johannesburg urban area. In order to effect that the necessary steps are now being taken by the City Council and the Provincial Administration in consultation with each other. I am glad that we have reached this stage because I think that it will expedite progress at Lenasia considerably. Planning in the Fordsburg area has progressed a great deal. In this regard it is the intention to start the actual building operations in the 1968-’69 financial year. We cannot do it any earlier than that because there still are expropriations to be made, as well as planning, etc.

As regards the participation of financial institutions and other bodies in the housing programme, I have said on occasion that those bodies do in fact have an important obligation in this regard. I shall do everything in my power to obtain the assistance of those concerns in providing in the housing needs of our country.

As regards the hon. member for Randburg, I agree whole-heartedly with him with the one reservation that we must never overlook the aesthetical appearance of the dwellings. Subject to this qualification I whole-heartedly agree with what he proposed. The hon. member for Salt River asked me whether it was possible for my Department itself to undertake the establishment of townships. His intention is that such a township is to be handed over to private initiative after the land has been acquired and the necessary services have been provided. Here I cannot agree with the hon. member because in my opinion it would not be right to do so. That would mean that public money would be invested in a project which would enable private initiative to make profits from that investment once the township had been handed over to private initiative. In the case of utility companies and local authorities, however, we can in fact do so. Matters relating to new townships and the provision of building sites are being investigated very thoroughly at the present time, and we hope that this investigation will show us new approaches. I agree with the hon. member that we shall have to resort to vertical development to an ever-increasing extent, although in this regard I want to repeat a previous warning of mine, and that is that we have to guard against building large blocks of flats the one next to the other with the eventual result that our people may perhaps not even have the opportunity of ever setting their feet upon the ground. I believe in vertical development provided that sufficient open spaces are left between buildings and provided that that does not adversely affect an aesthetical appearance.

As regards District Six, the assurance has repeatedly been given that the inhabitants will not be moved out of that area before provision has been made for them in another area. The idea should not be entertained that we will be able to move out the entire population of District Six all of a sudden within one week or within one month. They will be moved out step by step or perhaps block by block. In this way one street block will first be vacated and made available for redevelopment before a next block is tackled. Where houses are vacated in this way and Coloureds are still living in the immediate vicinity, it will, of course, be possible to relet those houses to Coloureds until such time as the vacating of that area starts. Valuations cannot be affected because in terms of an Act of Parliament an owner receives the full benefit of all appreciations over the next five years.

The hon. member for Outeniqua spoke of mosques. I shall once again go into this entire matter. If it appears that Moslems are not allowed to receive any compensation for such a mosque and if they have to build another mosque I shall see whether another method of compensating them cannot be found. I think such possibilities do exist and I shall go into the matter. The hon. member also asked me whether Rylands was going to remain an Indian area. It is out of the question that Rylands will be declared a Coloured area. It is an Indian area and will remain an Indian area. Any stories to the contrary are un founded and untrue. In this regard I have contacted also the Department of Planning, the Department concerned with the planning of group areas, and from that Department I learned that it was not its intention either to declare Rylands a Coloured area. Consequently Rylands remains an Indian area.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) referred to sub-economic housing schemes in urban areas. In this regard I may tell him that I have already instructed my Department to inform local authorities applying for economic housing schemes that, before final approval for such a scheme can be given and, as from next year, before money can be made available for such a scheme, we first require a proper survey to be made of the need existing for sub-economic housing in the urban area concerned. We are imposing this requirement so that we may satisfy ourselves that adequate provision has been made for the needs of the sub-economic groups before economic schemes are to be undertaken. Consequently we are placing emphasis on first providing houses to those people who need them most, namely the sub-economic groups.

The hon. member for Simonstown tried to chase up a hare on account of the fact that non-white institutions still exist in an area within his constituency which has been declared a white area and that in addition these institutions are still being extended. That, he said, was a flagrant offence against the principle of separate residential areas, a principle laid down by the Group Areas Act. Naturally I am very glad to find such a strong supporter of the principle of group areas and separate residential areas in the person of that hon. member.

I have told you what our policy is.

But apparently your policy does not agree with the policy of your party, because your party has been opposing this principle throughout the years. Wherever we have been engaged in clearance operations, that has been held against us. What the hon. member said contains a large degree of truth in the sense that it is wrong that those institutions are there and it would be wrong if those institutions were to remain there. The hon. member must realize, however, that we are faced with large numbers of unqualified persons living in proclaimed group areas and that the vast majority of those unqualified persons live in dilapidated and slum areas which are something much more detrimental to those areas and townships than the presence of those institutions in his constituency to which the hon. member referred. In this process we are therefore placing the emphasis first on clearing those areas which are dilapidated areas, and consequently the moving of institutions will only be undertaken at a later stage.

Are they only there temporarily then?

Yes, they are there temporarily. They will be moved to the non-white areas. Like some other institutions the Pollsmoor Prison, which is being extended at present, is being extended in such a way that it will eventually be possible to use it as a prison for Whites only. In other words, the Coloureds will eventually be removed from that institution. The intention is that all Coloured institutions will eventually be moved to Coloured areas. But these are major projects, expensive ones, and at this stage we need so much money for the clearance of dilapidated areas that the hon. member will still have to put up with those institutions in his constituency for many years.

Are you aware of the fact that many of those Government institutions are now being extended?

Yes, but those extensions are of a relatively minor nature in proportion to the large size of the institutions.

But one extension amounts to R½ million.

Sometimes it is better to spend R½ million at one place, particularly in times of inflation such as we are experiencing now, than to spend R5 million or R6 million for moving that place somewhere else. Those projects, however, will be undertaken in due course. As regards extensions to those institutions, I shall again bring it to the attention of my colleagues that further extensions are not to be effected unnecessarily and that we must keep an eye on the matter.

The hon. member for Brakpan spoke of the temporary rent boards and of the rearrangement of the rent boards on the East Rand. With reference to what I said earlier in the debate in regard to the entire position concerning rent control, I want to say that the matter is so liquid at the moment that I should not like to create further full-time rent boards, particularly not on the East Rand complex. That is one of the areas where there is at present no backlog of applications to be considered. However, I shall keep an eye on the position so as to see what can best be done in that regard in the light of what happens during the next few months and in the light of the pattern which develops as a result. I shall go into the matter of option money charged uninterruptedly over a long period. On the face of it it seems to me to be an evasion of the Rents Act. I am not sure about that but I shall go deeper into the matter. If it is possible to take action, we shall take action and if it is not possible to do so we shall see whether it is not possible to check that kind of exploitation by other means, for instance by means of negotiation.

Will there be further amendments to the Rents Act during this Session in order to cope with irregularities?

There will possibly be a minor amendment in regard to the application of the Rents Act to business sites. As the Act reads at present I can only reintroduce rent control over business sites if all business sites which were let prior to 1949 are once more made subject to rent control, and I should not like to do that. There will possibly be a minor amendment which will be embodied in the General Law Amendment Bill so as to empower me to make individual buildings subject to rent control in individual cases where there is exploitation in respect of business sites. I am still considering the matter.

Other aspects will not be affected?

I think the other aspects should be held over for this year so that we may obtain greater clarity and will have more time to go into the entire matter very thoroughly as well as to see how things develop and what the experience of the rent boards will be. As I said before, it seems to me as though the number of cases of exploitation is relatively small as against the large number of cases where rent increases are in fact justified. It may be that we shall reach the stage much sooner than we anticipated where it will again be possible to relax rent control.

The hon. member for Umbilo referred to problems in connection with the examination of applications for the erection of old age homes by welfare bodies and utility companies. The handbook which was recently distributed was only finalized beween the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Community Development in the course of last year. Consequently the very explicit handbook which exists at present was not so readily available to people in the past. Experience has shown that the vast majority of bodies did not really know how to set about things. They operated through their local authorities, their Members of Parliament and other bodies and eventually arrived at the Department of Community Development where they should indeed have gone in the first instance. Had they gone there in the first instance they would have obtained the necessary advice and assistance much sooner. A further delay did, of course, occur during the past financial year in that—as hon. members know—withdrawals from the Housing Fund by local authorities engaged in large schemes which they initially thought would be carried out over a longer period, took place at a much more rapid rate than we had anticipated. Consequently there was a deficit of approximately R8 million which we had to supplement. As a result new applications for funds for old age homes during the past financial year could not be dealt with immediately. But the position is different now and for this year sufficient funds are available for homes with the result that it will be possible to undertake the work immediately once everything has been prepared. Consequently provision will be made in the course of this year for the cases in Durban to which the hon. member referred.

Revenue Vote No. 13 and Loan Vote K put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 14,—“Public Works, R32,337”, and Loan Vote B,—“Public Works, R30,350”:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise one or two aspects of the work of the Department of Public Works, and I want to start by saying that there is in many quarters —I am talking now of State quarters—frustration and dissatisfaction in regard to the services which Public Works are able to provide in the field of building, provision of accommodation, the maintenance of and alterations to accommodation. I want to ask the Minister whether he has considered and studied the extent to which regulation and red tape often strangle and negative the efforts of the practical people who want to get on with the job at grassroots level. The complaint which I have heard on a number of occasions is that recommendations come forward from the man on the spot, the person who wants to carry out the particular job and who, as a qualified technical man, knows what is necessary and what is the best way to deal with it. But after that recommendation has sifted through all the purely administrative hands through which it has to pass and has been tested against regulations, rules and red tape drawn up by administrative personnel, by the time it gets back to the person who has to execute the job, the costs have either gone up to nearly double what it was before, or at least have increased considerably. Because of the delay often repairs, maintenance work or other action which could have been seen to timeously is then too late. I want to ask the Minister whether he would consider investigating the delays created administratively in dealing with practical problems. I know that he is now dealing to a large extent, especially in respect of maintenance work, with private firms. But here again one is bound by rules, regulations and red tape. For instance, if a plumber goes into a house he cannot touch an electric light but has to send for the electrician. He in turn comes in and finds a door handle to be loose. Can he fix it? No, he has to summon the carpenter. The carpenter discovers that there is a tap leaking so he has to send for the plumber again. I do not believe that sufficient use is being made of ordinary handymen who can do these minor repairs to State buildings, who can deal with the ordinary job that does not require a qualified artisan. Instead of sending in four people to attend to four small tasks which may take them a minute or two each, one handyman could in the course of a single morning go through a complete building and probably repair 50 or 60 such minor things which often are left to deteriorate, rather than waste time sending for an artisan to come and do the necessary repairs. This approach to the whole question of building maintenance is one which I believe could improve the position of the department very much indeed.

This does not apply to maintenance only but I believe in regard to basic expenditure also there is room for improvement. I now want to take a few examples at random. I should like to ask the Minister whether he does not consider that there is wastage where temporary work is carried out when it would have been better to get on with the permanent job straight away? I will deal with one example in my own constituency, namely that of the Durban prison. An amount of R100,000 has been allocated of which R5,000 will be spent this year, R62,000 has already been spent, and a further R33,000 is still to be spent. The Minister is aware of the fact that that prison is going to be moved. It may be moved fairly shortly, or at any rate it is hoped that it will be moved shortly because its removal forms part of the overall planning of Durban. I admit that minor improvements and minor additions, particularly for staff, can be necessary. But when one is dealing with R100,000 which is spent on temporary improvements, knowing that long-term improvements are going to be made, then I feel that there is something wrong.

Take the Indian university in Durban for instance. The original estimate was R10,000. That has now gone up to R168,500 under the heading of “Temporary Accommodation”. In the very next line one finds “University College for Indians—R9.5 million”. In one line one finds that R10,000 has grown into R168,000 for temporary accommodation whilst in the very next line one sees that R9½ million is being spent. This appears to me to be wastage due to improper planning or inability somewhere in the Government administration to take a final decision and get on with it. If one adds to these few instances the dozens of instances throughout these estimates where temporary work is being done then I believe that a tremendous saving could be effected.

Then one finds wastage because of delays. Here I take again one example, namely the Department of Defence. After a commission had reported damage and harm to military equipment through improper storage a plan for R1 million for covered accommodation for vehicles was approved. An amount of R1 million was decided on after a commission had sat and after pressure and debate in this House. Of that amount the fifth stage is to be voted this year, that is R150,000, but for the other four-fifths together a total of R50,000 has been spent. Added to the R150,000 for this year that means that R200.000 is accounted for, and R800,000 is still to come. Yet in the meantime, year after year, the vehicles stand out in the rain and the sun, continuing to deteriorate, continuing to suffer from the very things which a departmental commission said should be dealt with very urgently indeed.

Then there is the wastage due to policy. I do not have the time to go into this aspect at length. However, it is interesting to find in the Loan Vote that eight residences are being built for white Government officials in Umtata. I should like to ask the following question. The hon. the Minister of Public Works has handed over the responsibility for public works to the Transkeian Government. There is a Transkeian Minister of Public Works. The Transkeian Government is responsible and yet we are being asked to vote money. The white Minister of Public Works is asking the white Parliament to vote money when we have handed over control to another parliament to deal with that. I want to ask the Minister to what extent this Parliament is going to go on voting money to carry out responsibilities in fields which other Ministers of the Transkeian Government have already taken over?

Now, Sir, in the moment or so that I have left I should like to ask the Minister to clarify a matter which I feel is indicative of government contempt towards hon. members of Parliament. I put a question on the 5th February, 1965, to the then Minister of Public Works. It was not this Minister and I am not blaming him personally. However, the answer which I received and the answers to subsequent identical questions indicate an attitude either of irresponsibility or an attempt to avoid the issue—or plain carelessness. I asked whether the Minister had been requested to provide premises for a post office in the area of Addington Hospital, Durban, and if so, etcetera. The answer then, in February, 1965, was yes, he had been asked to provide it, and he went on to say that those premises had not yet been found. That was in February, 1965. In February, 1966, being persistent, I asked the same question, and I asked the Minister on what date he first received a request to provide alternative accommodation for a post office in the area of Addington Hospital. The answer was that it was requested by the department on the 22nd July, 1965. In February 1965, the Minister of Public Works said that he had already had a request. A year later he tells me that he received that request five months after he had told me that he already had it. And this year, still being persistent, I asked the same question, I asked how long had this matter been in the hands of the department, and the anwer was: “No—(a)—and

(b) fall away.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, imagine having only ten minutes to discuss a matter to which you have been devoting your energies for ten long years and with which you have progressed only ten inches! After I have made this speech, I shall have been dealing with this matter for exactly ten years and ten minutes. We are suffering from the disadvantages of our prosperity. This is how things are. To put it in rustic terms, our backlog is the front wheel of the wagon. This seems to be an anomaly. The backlog is the front wheel of the wagon and our attempts to make up that backlog are the back wheel, and the two wheels roll and roll and roll, from the Cape to the Limpopo, but the back wheel simply cannot catch up with the front wheel! The matter I have on my mind is this. There is one matter that causes me sorrow. I am sorry that I will have to conclude all my efforts on this note, because this is the last opportunity I shall have to discuss this matter in this House. As I say, there is one matter that causes me sorrow, and that is the one-year pregnancy of Nylstroom in expectation of the birth of a technical high school.

You are going to have twins.

I am the “father” of this long-awaited newcomer. I had hoped to be able to welcome this newcomer during my term of office as a member of Parliament. As a result of the new legislation, however, I shall have to ask the Provincial Administration to take over from me the task of cuddling and looking after the newcomer. I shall have to renounce my “fatherhood”. It has now come to my knowledge that this school is not included in the five-year plan. Every time one year passes, a fifth year is added, so that we always have a five-year plan.

Order! Does that school appear anywhere on the Estimates?