I move the following amendments—

We on this side of the House are opposed to this clause, and even with the hon. the Minister’s amendment we still intend to oppose it. This clause seeks in our opinion to place in the hands of this Minister the powers to which we objected in the Second Reading debate and we will definitely vote against it.

I would like the hon. the Minister to be good enough to clarify two points which arise from the clause as it now reads and as it will read after the amendment proposed by the Minister. The first one is a question which was put to the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate and to which I do not think he has had an opportunity of replying. Does this clause, in referring to property not zoned for industrial purposes, apply to town planning schemes in the course of preparation and awaiting approval, even if these schemes are in force in terms of a Cape Ordinance? The hon. the Minister will be aware that in terms of the Townships Ordinance of the Cape Provinz every municipality has prepared a blue-print for future development. This is a provisional scheme, and a number of cases have not yet been approved by the Administration. Does this mean that those provisional schemes will no longer be regarded as being of force and effect and will need the approval of the Minister before they become final? The second point is this: The hon. the Minister will be aware that in the case of a number of town planning layouts throughout the Republic, the future industrial areas are shown by the local authority as an undivided area. For instance, a municipality in laying out townships within its boundaries will provide for an industrial area to be developed in due course. Will clause 2 (1) (b) mean that an area which is already zoned for industrial purposes cannot be subdivided by a municipality into saleable, usable erven without the Minister’s approval?I should be glad if the hon. the Minister can deal with those two queries.

With regard to the hon. member’s first question, i want to point out that the clause, as it is proposed to be amended, is amended in this way to meet the very problem he foresees. That problem therefore falls away. As regards his second question, regarding clause 2 (1) (b), the fact of the matter is—and this is also the intention—that no land which has been zoned for industrial purposes may be subdivided unless the written approval of the Minister is obtained.

If that is the position under this Bill, even with the amendment by which the hon. the Minister gives a certain amount of alleviation, one still feels that this is an objectionable clause and one which we trust this Committee will not accept. The effect of this clause now, as soon as the Minister decides that it is of importance to apply this Bill to a particular area, is to make of no consequence whatsoever all the local planning, local knowledge, provincial planning, provincial know-how, and all the work of the provincial and area resources committees which have been functioning over the years under the 1947 Act. We on this side of the House and hon. members opposite who have been concerned with the development of the west coast of the Cape Province and who have taken an active part in the development of the Western Cape will realize …

Speak for yourself.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has nothing to do with the development of the Western Cape. He thinks I am talking about Bantu in Cape Town; I am talking about something quite different. Sir, I am talking about those who have participated in the planning and the development of the west coast of this province. They will now find that their work was in vain. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that by the application of this clause he is going to delay beyond endurance—it must be so of necessity—the development of industries along the west coast of the Cape Province.

The position is simply this. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Klip River suggests that that will not be so, but I want to tell the Minister that that has happened already. Today we have to go to one Department only, the Department of Bantu Administration, but what is the position going to be if we have to go through a conglomeration of all the Departments? I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister also that under clause 2 (2), even with the Minister’s amendments, one Department, the Department of Planning, will apparently have the power to dictate conditions as to the use of labour. Nowhere in this Bill does it say that he must have regard to the labour laws as they exist. He can impose conditions in regard to housing. Where does the Department of Community Development come into this? He can also impose conditions as to the use of water. In addition, there is no obligation on the Minister to consult with any organization or body whatsoever before he imposes those conditions, except his own Department. It is obvious that the Minister will say that he will consult, but that is because he chooses to do so and not because the law requires him to do so. He may choose to consult somebody but he is not compelled to do so by law. I believe that if this clause is passed as it stands now, even with the Minister’s amendment, property ownership will become a hazard and not an investment, because at any time the Minister may change his mind or change his planning and so affect the rights of ownership of property in any part of the Republic where one is at present contemplating industrial development. For those reasons one hopes that the Committee will not accept this clause, even in its amended form.

May I point out to the hon. member, who says that it will now become a hazard to own land, that this provision only applies to land zoned for industrial purposes. Secondly, the hon. member also made the point that all the work being done by local authorities and the provinces will now be undone and will have no consequence whatever. He also considers that there will now be tremendous delay. I should like to remind the hon. member that the position to-day is that there is consultation with the Central Government, and not only with one Department. This, in effect, will facilitate matters, because now the views of only one Department need be obtained. In terms of this clause, the exact procedure followed in the past will now also be followed, but the advantage will be that the collective views and wishes of all Government Departments involved in the particular matter which is being put to the Department of Planning will now be given to the person making the inquiries by one department only. It will facilitate to a large extent the whole procedure that has been followed up to now and it legalizes the position that the Department of Planning will be the only channel through which people who are in the process of subdividing land for industrial purposes will be able to get the views of the Government.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes. Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

These amendments are already printed in my name on the Order Paper. Then I should also like to move the following additional amendments—

I move these additional amendments because clause 3 (2) (a), (b) and (d) may perhaps be construed as containing possible discriminations against an isolated factory. To eliminate any such possibility, but without detracting from the effectiveness of the clause, I therefore move these amendments. I may also just mention that representatives of the industrial sector feel that this is an improvement on the clause as worded at present. I gladly consented to omit this. I just want to say, furthermore, that in respect of the clause as a whole, I want to refer to the wording of clause 3 (4), namely—

I am quite aware of the fact that as it reads at present, if there had been no other provision in this clause, it would have created problems and imposed unnecessary burdens in certain cases, if no regard is had to or provision made for, for example, seasonal fluctuations in Bantu labour, or if it was not borne in mind that certain industries, and particularly the smaller industries, may not yet have full occupation of their operational space. In the case of the completed building on an area which has not yet been zoned an industrial area by proclamation, a person may perhaps already have approved plans for the erection of a factory or the extension of an existing factory. In such case his position is not only unequal but also uncertain. I mention these cases, and there may be others as well, specifically because I did not include it in the Bill. Proposals to that effect have been submitted to me, but unfortunately I cannot accent them because there is ample opportunity in the implementation of this clause, under clause 3 (2), for the state Resident to define such cases by way of the definition of a “class of factory”by proclamation in the Gazette. In practice it actually means procedures which are followed in terms of other legislation, that is, to do something of this nature by way of regulations. I deal with these matters in detail because I want to make it very clear to the owners of industries that it is not the intention to impose unnecessary burdens on the industrialist. My Department and I are fully aware of the problems which may arise and which do exist in these two cases I have mentioned. There may be other cases as well. I say this because I want to honour my promise, namely that in the application of this clause in particular I want full consultation with industry, not only with one section of industry, but industry as widely as possible, and also individual industrialists. I now want to reiterate that before this clause is put into effect there will be very wide consultation, and we shall lend as sympathetic an ear as possible, without affecting the basic principle of this legislation, in an attempt to give relief in such cases and not to bring about hampering effect in any respect. I may just add, furthermore, that I am quite satisfied that this is the correct method. Until the State President has zoned an area by way of a proclamation in the Gazette, this clause will not come into operation. In respect of the three matters I have mentioned, as well as other matters, it will therefore offer the fullest opportunity, as I said in my Second Reading Speech, for consultation, for hearing problems and for meeting those problems, provided that they come within the fundamental framework of the Bill. I am convinced that this is a very sound basis. It is a very intimately co-operating basis, as a result of this very method I am prescribing, between my Department and me and the people who are vitally concerned in this matter. I hope we shall receive full co-operation in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move an amendment. Although it has not appeared on the Order Paper, I tried to the best of my ability to give the hon. the Minister a copy before lunch. I think that the Minister’s argument is more or less tailor-made to support my amendment. My amendment reads as follows:

To omit subsection (1) and to substitute the following subsection:

1. (1) No person shall without the written approval of the Minister—
   1. (a) establish a factory of a particular class to which the provisions of this subsection have, by subsection 2, been applied; or
   2. (b) extend a factory for the establishment of which such approval has been given.

The object of moving this amendment is to tie up with the thoughts the hon. the Minister has expressed. I am sure that the hon. the Minister does not want to use what is known in America as a scatter-gun in applying this particular clause. He wants to apply it to a particular class of factory or to factories in a certain area. He has said so. He supports my argument by subsection (2) of clause 3 and also by his proposal to omit certain additional words. It means that if he will accept my amendment in subsection (1) that in fact any proclamation under subsection (2) will apply to those factories. All other factories will not in fact be hindered in their operation and in their future expansion by the present wording of subsection (1). Subsection (1) reads as follows:

My point is that I believe that the Minister’s intention in this clause is only to deal with factories of a certain class or in a certain area. For that reason I move this particular amendment.

Whilst I am on my feet I should like to move a further amendment to clause 3. I sent a copy of this to the Minister. I hope he has it. This amendment reads as follows:

As the hon. the Minister has amended subsection (4), he has now made it quite clear that the extension of a factory under this particular subsection shall be by an increase of Bantu labour. There are many industries, as the hon. the Minister knows, where the number of Bantu employees fluctuates considerably. There are times when a factory, because of reasons of bulk deliveries or buildups in deliveries by the Railways or other organizations, has to take on temporary labour or to increase their staff to cope with this particular factor. Under the clause as it now stands, it would appear to me that if a labour force is increased again after having been decreased before, subsection (4) will come into operation. I sincerely believe that the amendment which I now propose will give each factory an established labour force of X. whatever X may be, but in any event the number of persons that was envisaged to be employed under the Factories, Machinery and Building Works Act. Within the framework of that accepted number, the factory will then be able to decrease or increase that number as required from time to time, provided that at no time it exceeds the number which was envisaged when the permit was granted.

I think these are two reasonable amendments. The hon. the Minister will remember that at the Second Reading he said that he was open to reasonable amendments, especially to subsection (4) of clause 3. I submit that these are in fact two reasonable amendments. The first one fits in with the thinking which the hon. the Minister has outlined to the House. My proposal in regard to subsection (4) does, I think, greatly improve the clause and I believe also carries out what the hon. the Minister would like to see in this Bill, and therefore I move both of these amendments.

I want to deal briefly with the amendment which has been moved by the hon. the Minister in regard to subsection (3). The clause, as printed, requires the hon. the Minister to have regard to the availability of labour, housing, water and other acknowledged factors, for the establishment or extension of factories. The hon. the Minister’s amendment is to delete from that clause the obligation upon him to have regard to the availability of these particular factors. It merely retains the right to impose conditions in connection with any of those factors. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister can perhaps elaborate for us the reason why these factors to be taken into consideration are now to be merely the fields or factors in respect of which he can now impose conditions of use. The hon. the Minister I appreciate is in some difficulty studying one amendment while I am speaking to his own. The point I want to make is that whereas it was understood that what subsection (3) contained as published were factors to which the hon. the Minister would have to have regard when imposing conditions, they are now no longer to be regarded as such but merely as fields in which he can now impose conditions—by this deletion of the words “labour, housing, water” in the first portion of subsection (3). This is something which the hon. the Minister should elucidate. He merely moved the amendment without giving any reasons therefor.

The proposals by the hon. member for Umlazi correspond mainly to what I said a moment ago in respect of certain factors which must be had regard to and which have to be thoroughly considered as far as the private sector is concerned. And this being so, I am not convinced that his amendment covers everything or gives a clear picture of what possible factors may have to be taken into consideration. In this regard I have already mentioned several matters. I have referred to the seasonal fluctuation in Bantu manpower, as one finds it in any factory, as a result of orders which are placed in greater bulk at certain times of the year than at other times of the year. Furthermore, there is the under occupation of factory space or the case where plans have already been approved, where certain financial commitments have been taken up and where the person has already gone a long way, and specifically where it has been approved. In addition, as I have already said quite clearly, there may also be other matters, and if I accepted this amendment of the hon. member’s I would merely succeed halfway in my endeavour to take everything into consideration in respect of the practical implementation of this Bill. For that reason I am unfortunately not able to accept it, but that does not mean in any way that the consideration of these factors and provision for them have been excluded. The opposite is true, namely that a full opportunity is in fact offered in this clause to provide for that, namely by proclamation, though only after thorough consultation and thorough canvassing of precisely which matters are relevant, to what extent they are relevant and also precisely how it should be framed in a notice in the Gazette. Therefore I am unfortunately unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member. The hon. member for Green Point has also raised a certain point and asked that I should explain the amendment on the Order Paper. I refer to clause 3 (3). At the moment this clause reads as follows—

Essentially this provision, as amended, is exactly as it read originally, except that it is now a better statement of everything that has to be taken into consideration. It is phrased as widely as possible, not with the object of creating problems but in fact so as not to lose sight of all possibly relevant factors. I really do not think this clause 3 (3) could be more clearly worded than at present. The hon. member also spoke of certain norms which he would like to see and spoke amongst other things of an “X number of Bantu employees in a particular factory where you have fluctuation of Bantu during certain times of the year”.

† May I say again that, as I said in my Second Reading speech, I am not prepared, and I do not think it would be right of me, to be drawn into giving any norm of any formula at this stage, because it is my precise intention to discuss this particular aspect, namely the question of fluctuation in the labour force at certain times of the year …

I am trying to get back to the Factories, Machinery and Building Works Act, because factories are designed to employ so many labourers.

That is quite correct. As the hon. member knows, a representative of the Department of Labour will at all times be co-responsible for whatever decision is taken. However, one might get a situation where, although a certain floor space has been designed and a permit, or whatever it is called, given by the Department of Labour for a certain number of employees, but that factory is not fully occupied as yet. There is, of course, also the consideration whether the factory is occupied only by Bantu or by other races as well. And, therefore, I have also in mind that in factories where there is not full usage of the floor space one would have to discuss this in great detail with industry so as to obviate any difficulties in regard to the running of that factory at peak periods or the full employment and the full use of floor space and also the question of different races being employed in that particular factory. Because a position might arise where Coloured or other labour or even white labour in cases where there is not provision made for it by the Department of Labour might be taken over by Bantu. And that of course we want to obviate. I therefore appeal to hon. members. My intention is not to make it difficult to industry; my intention is to leave the matter wide open so as to hear from the industries what their difficulties are in regard to all these different problems, problems which I am sure we can’t all foresee even in our wisdom here in Parliament. They have the knowledge of these things and so has my Department. Other Departments too have been working with this for very many years. The only appeal that I make, and I am making provision therefor, is to leave the matter open. Once the Act is promulgated, there will be full discussions so as to see exactly where exceptions must be made, what norms, if any, or X numbers, as the hon. member has called them, must be decided upon before this clause is put into effect.

I want to return to that portion of my amendment which is in the form of a proviso to subclause (4), and which the hon. the Minister has just rejected. I want to give him an example of what I believe might well happen. Before this legislation was contemplated, and complying fully with the then existing legislation, a company or a person might well have decided to erect a factory and start a particular industry. After consultation under the existing legislation and having made the necessary application under the Factories, Machinery and Building Works Act of 1941, stipulating quite clearly not only the number of people they hope to employ at the immediate time when the building was completed but providing for a build-up for the future—every business which is established provides for future expansion—‘this factory then was approved to employ a particular number of persons, so many of whom were White, so many of whom might well have been Coloureds, so many might well have been Indians and so many might well have been Bantu.

That was agreed upon by all concerned, and under the legislation which then existed the green light was given to that industry to establish itself where it is established to-day and subject to the plan for future development which it had presented to the authorities. I feel that that being the case it is incumbent upon the hon. the Minister—I believe he actually owes it to that type of industry—to give them the assurance, and to write that assurance into the Act, that they can go on with their plan as it was agreed upon at that date. If that assurance is not written into the Act, then the Government is reneying on its undertaking to that industry when it established itself. That industry established itself in all good faith; it was established for the good of the industry itself and it was established for the good of South Africa. Now suddenly the rules are changed and, Sir, this is happening every day. I wonder in the case of how many Bills this Session I have had to get up and say that because this or that happened the Government has now changed the rules. Because the other side scored a goal or because something happened, the Government changed the rules. Here too the hon. the Minister is changing the rules. He is changing the rules under which that factory was granted the right to establish itself, to exist and to plan for its future expansion. I believe the hon. the Minister owes it to such industries to give them the assurance which I am trying to give them here and that is that their plans will not be interfered with; that they will be allowed to develop not only as they planned but as the Government helped and encouraged them to plan. Because the Government has encouraged the development of industry; every Government encourages industries in this country. Obviously therefore these people who find themselves in this particular position which I have described here established their industries not only on their own accord but with the encouragement of the Government. Now suddenly they find themselves in a position where if they increase the number of their Bantu employees to the number envisaged when they built their factory, when they invested their capital and when they did their planning, they will now fall under the terms of this Act. True, the hon. the Minister has said that he will consider this thing fairly and that there will be consultation. Sir, that is all very well but that is something that still has to be argued. Why should they have to argue or re-argue the situation which existed when they established themselves? Why should they have to run the risk of having to uproot themselves or to plan any future development in the border industry areas? There is no reason why they should have to do this, and I honestly believe that the hon. the Minister should write a guarantee, a reassurance to these industries, into the Bill, that the Government will in fact play its part and accept the responsibility which it undertook at that time to allow them to establish themselves and to expand in the area in which they are situated to-day.

It seems to me that in the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister he is increasing his authority. He is assuming greater powers than the clause already gives him. We are not only speaking of the extension of a factory, we are speaking of the extension of the Minister’s authority and the powers granted to him under the Bill. At present the clause reads that the Minister must have regard to the availability of labour, housing, water “and other acknowledged factors”. Acknowledged by whom? Obviously by the industry; by all people associated with the industry. That is what the Minister has to do under the clause as it reads at present. What powers is he assuming under the amendment? He need no longer have regard to “other acknowledged factors”; this is what he says: “any other matter which in his opinion is relevant”. It need not be an acknowledged factor, a factor acknowledged by the industry. The Minister at his whim can say: “In my opinion that is not relevant and therefore I cannot consider it.” I think the hon. the Minister, under this amendment, is increasing his authority. He is going to increase his authority to do what? To control the extension of a factory. And what is meant by “the extension of a factory, as referred to in the second part of his amendment? You are extending a factory if you employ an extra Bantu. The hon. the Minister will have absolute power to say in what circumstances any industrialist may employ one or more Bantu. I feel therefore that this extension of power is undesirable. The clause was bad enough before; now it is worse.

The hon. the Minister has based his case for the clause as redrafted on the desire to leave the door wide open for consultation with industry in deciding to what extent he will be obliged under this measure to restrict the development of factories or classes of factories. I believe that the hon. the Minister’s amendment to clause 3 (3), as has been said by the hon. member for Kensington, not only gives him wider powers but it causes even more uncertainty so far as industrialists are concerned as to where they will stand when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. Sir, with whom is the Minister going to consult? He has indicated in the course of discussions on this Bill that the F.C.I. has apparently not fitted into the picture correctly in the formulation of this Bill, and he has referred to individual industrialists. With whom is he going to consult with regard to the restriction he is going to impose on the use of water, on the use of labour and on housing? He has indicated to us that an enormous interdepartmental committee is going to be established but, Sir, that committee will not be answerable to this House. That committee will be answerable only to the Minister; it will be there only to express its views to the Minister. Sir, the reason why subclause (3) causes greater uncertainty is that there is no longer a national advisory council or a body of that sort in existence which is answerable to Parliament as a statutory body created by Parliament. If there were such a body, that body would lay its report on the Table of the House and Parliament would have access to it. But what access will Parliament have to this advisory body established for the purpose of advising the Minister? Sir, clause 3 (1), unless the hon. the Minister accepts the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi, makes the question as to whether the planned stage-development of a factory can be undertaken or not, a matter for the consent of the Minister. There must be dozens of industries in South Africa that were not established merely to supply the market that existed at the date of establishment. At the time of their establishment they were planned for development as the demand for the commodity manufactured by them grew. That planned stage-development of existing industries can at any moment, by a proclamation bringing that class of factory under the provisions of this measure, be placed in jeopardy. At any rate, there is no certainty so far as the future is concerned. The industrialist who has invested his money with a view to the establishment of a growing industry now finds himself in the position that he does not know whether or not he will be able to continue to expand because on each occasion when there is expansion involving the employment of one extra Bantu he must obtain the consent of the hon. the Minister. Sir, the hon. the Minister has also said to us that it is not his intention to restrict it to one Bantu, that he will try to establish a norm, but his amendment to subclause (3) has removed any statutory obligation which he formerly had to consider those factors which it was his duty to consider under the Bill as originally printed. Under clause 3 (3), as originally printed, the Minister may, having regard to certain factors, stipulate certain conditions. Under the clause, as amended, the Minister now has a wide unfettered discretion; he may impose conditions with regard to the use of water, labour, etc. I want to suggest this to the hon. the Minister—that he withdraw his amendment—and I do so in all sincerity because we are trying to arrive at an answer which is not going to be harmful to the industrial development of this country. I believe that the clause as now amended will create even more uncertainty and even more hesitancy as regards the establishment of industries in South Africa. I do not say it will stop development, but it will put a brake on development.

I dealt with my second amendment first and I now want to come back to my amendment to subsection (1). I want to tell the hon. the Minister what I have in mind in moving this amendment. What I have done by my amendment, in fact, is to omit “establish or extend a factory”. What I am particularly interested in is the question of extending a factory. I think I can give a good example. Let us assume that we have a factory at the moment, perhaps in the Cape Town complex, which is manufacturing electronic material, like parts for radios. At the moment it works at fairly full capacity and employs quite a lot of labour. But let us assume that to-morrow the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs gives the okay for television. What would happen to that factory? It would be bursting at the seams. Its employment would double, at least. Now, what is going to happen in the case of an industry such as that? Is it going to be limited because it needs a dozen more Bantu to unload the extra raw material coming in to make the apparatus required in television sets? We do not want to have to import these things if they can be made here. What does this factory do? The Minister may say: Let them come to me, and after I have referred them to this committee I will consider the matter and tell them whether they can extend the factory or not.

But the Minister will be flooded with requests like that, and all the manufacturers will have to await their turn; they will have to queue up, and we all know how quickly the Government machinery works. It works so quickly that the opportunity has gone by the time a decision is arrived at by the Government, and this Minister’s Department will be no exception to this golden rule. I believe that his powers in this clause as a whole now are such that if he accepts my amendment he will still have the power to control this type of industry he wants to control, because subsection (2) enables him to do so. The Minister agrees with that. Why does he want to drag in everything, and put his finger on all other industries at the same time? Surely he knows which industries he wants to control. He knows, because he is taking powers to control them, and he specifies the class of factories he wants to control. Why does he want to go as wide as this? He also has the power, further on, to control all factories either within or outside an area defined in the proclamation. So he can control them in the first place on the basis of the particular type of industry, and I take it that what he will do is to compile a graph of the Bantu labour-intensive industries, whatever that may mean, and he will also decide the areas where they cannot establish themselves. He has that power in terms of subsection (2). So why will he not accept my amendment to subsection (1) and remove the sword that is now hanging over the heads of all established industries which are hoping, as we are hoping, that they will be able to expand? If he accepts my amendment, it will do exactly this. That is why I am moving the amendment, because I believe it will be in the interests of all concerned, including the Minister and the Government, if he will accept it.

As regards clause 3 (2),I should like to convey my appreciation to the Minister for the amendments made by him in omitting certain words with a view to removing any hint of possible discrimination under that clause. As for clause 3 (3), the arguments of hon. members on the opposite side are not quite clear to me. On the one hand the hon. member for Kensington said that the Minister had all the power in terms of clause 3 (4), and asked why further amendments should be made to clause 3 (3). But if he has all the powers, why does the hon. member complain if amendments are made? But by implication hon. members on the opposite side said that the amendments made by the hon. the Minister were of substantial importance, and they are in fact of substantial importance, and I shall tell you why. As the clause reads at present, it provides that the availability of labour, housing, water and other acknowledged factors for the establishment or extension of factories should be taken into consideration, but it is not specifically stated what should be taken into consideration.

It is not necessary now.

No, it is merely stated more clearly, for what are acknowledged factors? Hon. members do not know all the factors taken into consideration by industrialists when they establish their factories.

Have you read the amendment?

Yes. I have. The amendment puts it beyond all doubt.

Those words were deleted by the Minister’s amendment.

No, certain words are deleted and are substituted by certain other words, such as labour, housing, water consumption, or any other matter which in his opinion is relevant. [Interjections.] That is in fact my argument. I think it is right that the Minister should delete the words “and other acknowledged factors”, because so many subjective factors are taken into consideration by an industrialist if he wants to establish a factory. Who is going to determine what the acknowledged factors are? The new clause puts it beyond all doubt that it will rest in the opinion of the Minister. I say it is much clearer and more definite and less suspended in mid-air. For that reason this side of the House cannot agree that the amendment as it reads at present will create greater uncertainty for the industrialist. Not only that, but it confers on the Minister full power, beyond any possible doubts, which is also important. If there are any doubts about the wording of a clause it merely gives rise to uncertainty, and as it reads at present, this clause removes that very uncertainty.

As for clause 3 (4), surely the Minister has made it quite clear that he admits that there are many factors he should take into consideration and will certainly take into consideration, and I agree with many things said by hon. members on the opposite side in connection with the application of that clause. I also agree that an industrialist who has erected a certain building has a moral right to occupy that factory and to occupy it economically. But surely the Minister made it quite clear that he did not want to be too specific in this clause. He does not want to provide for all possibilities, because in certain cases he may either insert important matters which may eventually appear to be a restriction to the detriment of industry, or he may omit important matters. By regulation he then has to add the aspects which he omitted. The Minister stated quite clearly—and I want to thank him for that—and admitted that there are numerous factors which he will outline, particularly by way of regulation. I am satisfied, and I think this side of the House is satisfied, that the Minister will do so, and particularly—and this is important—after consultation with industry. Hon. members on the opposite side had a great deal to say about this question of consultation. Now the Minister wants to give them the assurance that those are in fact aspects he does not want to take a decision on to-day or include in the measure, but that he will lay down those matters by way of regulation after he has consulted industry. I think that should satisfy that side of the House. I think it should also satisfy industry.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Florida, if one understands the position, is a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Council, and one wonders, in view of what they had to say about this matter, how the hon. gentleman can get up in this Committee and say what he has said, unless of course what he has just delivered is the minority report of the Economic Council! I wonder if the hon. member would enlighten us as to his attitude towards this matter.

I am no long a member of the Economic Advisory Council—I resigned when I became an M.P.

I do not think the hon. member has read the Minister’s amendment. I do not think he has. He started reading this clause as if the words which appear in it were supposed to remain. The Minister has already moved that certain words be deleted, and the words which he moves should be deleted are the words which fetter his discretion. In other words, as the Bill now reads, the Minister exercises a discretion having regard to certain factors, such as, “the availability of labour, housing, water and other acknowledged factors for the establishment or extension of factories …. These are the things which one obviously should have regard to if one were going to exercise these powers. Now the Minister says that he does not want to be fettered any more. He wants an absolute, unfettered discretion to exercise his powers in this regard. The hon. member says that the Minister then puts it in somewhere else. Now, the hon. the Minister shakes his head as well, because what he does is he puts those words at the end of the clause. But what do they mean there? it does not fetter his discretion when he puts it there. All it does is to say that he may lay down conditions in connection with those factors which he would, but for the removal of those words, have to take into account when he exercises his discretion.

In clause 3 (3) you find the words “in his discretion”, in the original subsection.

That is right, but the words “in his discretion” are not unrelated. The subsection says that “the Minister may … in his discretion …” but “having regard to the availability of labour, housing, water and other acknowledged factors …” Now he takes those words out. So he does not have to have regard to those factors any more: he now has an unfettered discretion. Whether in fact the availability of labour, housing and water would make the exercise of that discretion proper or not does not matter now. If, for example, the Minister wanted to do it for a purely ideological, political motive, or if he wanted to do it for any cause whatsoever which would in fact be a wrong exercise of his discretion, if one did regard the availability of labour, housing, water, and other acknowledged factors, he could do so.

It is in my discretion.

In the Minister’s discretion. Now the Minister does not have to have regard to those factors. He can have regard to any other factors. To give an example —I am not suggesting the Minister is going to do it—the Minister may want to help a friend of his to go somewhere. As it is, if the Minister’s decision was contrary to the availability of labour, housing, and all these factors, then that decision could be upset if it was obviously contrary to those factors. But now it cannot be. Moving those words down to the end of subsection (3) does not change the position one bit. All that that provides is that the Minister now, having exercised his discretion, not having to have regard to any factors whatsoever, none at all, may then impose conditions in connection with labour, housing, and so on.

What in fact has here happened by virtue of this amendment is that the Minister’s discretion is completely widened. He may do anything he likes, have regard to any sort of factor he likes, or disregard all the acknowledged factors if he likes. He is then given another power, and that is to lay down conditions in regard to the places where he has made this decision.

If the Minister is not with me on this then I ask him to look at it in another way. Subsection (3) states that, “he may impose such conditions as he may deem fit, including conditions in connection with one or more or all of the said factors”. By virtue of his latest amendment the reference to “factors” is taken out, and the factors are then inserted elsewhere. So the factors are removed. Surely, it is clear to the Minister that he now has a completely unfettered discretion. What he has not told us is this: Why does he not want, when he exercises his discretion, to have to have regard to the factors which are herein set out? That is what we should like to know and I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us.

Mr. Chairman, it appears to me as though the hon. members for Umlazi, Green Point and Durban (North) are speaking on the assumption that the Minister is simply going to refuse in all cases—that is what their objections amount to in effect. They speak as though the Minister will refuse in all cases. It all just means that the hon. gentlemen are once again seeing ghosts which do not exist at all. The hon. member for Umlazi used an example to illustrate what he meant. Unfortunately he chose a very poor example. He said that if there were an electronics factory here in the Western Cape and the Government decided to allow television in South Africa, the factory would be inundated with work and they would have to employ many more Bantu to be able to carry out the order. The mistake made by the hon. member is that he forgot that the Minister would know, long before any industrialist, that television would be allowed, and that he could therefore put the machinery into operation timeously to meet the situation which might arise. I say once again, the hon. member chose a very poor example, because here in the Western Cape there are electronics factories. In my own constituency, for example, there is such a factory, and it does not use one Bantu. Surely one does not need only Bantu to manufacture electrical appliances. That is the basic assumption hon. members are making, and that is why they fall flat every time. We therefore want to support the hon. the Minister very strongly in lespeet of clause 3, as he has now amended it.

Mr. Chairman. I do hope the hon. the Minister is going to give us the benefit of his views in regard to the opinions which have been expressed here and indicate whether he in fact agrees that he has now a discretion which he did not have when he introduced the Bill at the Second Reading. One wonders whether he is not in fact widening the scope of this particular clause by his I amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask you seriously whether in fact the hon. the Minister is not now altering the principle which was adopted at the Second Reading. He is taking an unfettered discretion which he did not have when he introduced the Bill.

Order! If that had been the case I would have ruled the amendment out of order, but it has not been mied out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I thought that I might draw the matter to the attention of the Chair. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what will happen in the particular circumstance I am about to mention:

I have a factory making some commodity. I then tender, when I see a Government tender published in the Government Gazette, to provide, for instance filing cabinets. In order to fulfil that contract I shall need more labour because it is a big contract. The price I quoted is competitive. What happens now? In order to complete my contract under that tender, I have to go to the hon. the Minister or someone else. Subject to all sorts of factors, I may or may not get that extra labour in which case I may or may not get my contract. But worse, say there are two people in the same position. They have both tendered and it is the hon. the Minister who in the end decides who is going to get the contract. It will not be decided on the normal basis of the man with the lowest tender who can deliver the goods.

The fact of the matter is that the hon. the Minister says that he wants to leave the matter wide open for consultation and that is why he does not want to define these various matters.

Order! I hope that the hon. member will stop repeating now. He and other hon. members have been making this point since the Committee started considering this clause.

The hon. the Minister says that he wants to leave the matter wide open to consultation. The point I want to make is this. Surely it is the function of this Committee to determine the manner and the sphere in which the hon. the Minister’s powers are to be exercised. He is responsible to this House and the hon. the Minister is aware of this. Surely no one in this Committee wants to give any Minister, on principle, unfettered discretions and powers over which it has no control, without saying to the Minister, “You should proceed in exercising these powers in this direction”. That is just what this clause laid down before the hon. the Minister moved his amendment and I hope that he is going to withdraw that amendment.

Are you referring to clause 3 (3)?

It is the amendment which omits the words from “may” to “factories”. The amendment appears on page 547 of the Order Paper. I hope that the hon. the Minister will withdraw this amendment because otherwise the industrialist just does not know where he stands. How does he know where he stands? How does he make a case? As it is he can make a case. He can go to the hon. the Minister and say, “Having regard to the Act and the criteria laid down. I have this case to make”. But how does he prepare a case now? What does he do before he goes to see the hon. the Minister? He must go to him with a case prepared. He knows what he wants and he says, “Having regard to what is laid down in the Act, I think that I am entitled to it in terms of clause 3”. But what does he do now? What does he do if this amendment is accepted? What case does he make? The Act will give him no idea as to what case he must make. He goes to the Minister and says, “You have absolute discretion, having regard to no known factors whatsoever, in making a decision. What approach do you think I should make?” Is this what he has to do? I hope that the hon. the Minister will reconsider this.

Mr. Chairman, we have come to know the hon. member for Durban (North) very well. He always reminds me of my early youth, when I had to grind coffee for my mother in the old type of coffee mill which one had to adjust. One would grind, and then the adjustment would go wrong and one would have to readjust it and start grinding again. In that way the little coffee mill took a whole afternoon to grind a small quantity of coffee. That is how the hon. member has been grinding on the same point all afternoon. I have come to know him in this House as the master bungler. The hon. member should bear in mind that we are here dealing with what we call an enabling clause, a measure by which certain powers are conferred. According to his argument he wants to restrict the power to such an extent that it does not allow the Minister the necessary elasticity which is absolutely essential to him. He will not have the powers he needs when acting in connection with factories which are established or extended. He needs that elasticity, and that is why it is worded in this way. The Minister made it quite clear that he wanted to lay down the criteria in terms of subsection (2). The hon. member wants everything to be laid down by legislation. He wants to have it done in advance. He keeps insisting that these powers which are now being conferred on the Minister should be restricted. Once one starts restricting, one has to continue restricting and provide for all possibilities. That is precisely what we do not want in this clause. I think it is crystal clear that this amendment is a great improvement on the subsection as it was worded previously. The wording was very clumsy, and after this amendment it reads fluently and we know exactly what the Minister wants and does not want.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Heilbron considers this amendment to be an improvement. I agree with him that it is an improvement if looked upon from the other side of the House.

That is the only side that matters.

That may be the case in the eyes of the hon. member for Heilbron but I am afraid that in the eyes of this side of the House and in the eyes of the industrialists and the economists of this country, that is not the side that matters. As has been explained by the hon. member for Durban (North) this amendment removes the fetters on the discretion of the hon. the Minister. It does not only remove the fetters but it gives him further powers.

Order! That point has been made over and over again.

I want now to deal with another aspect of this clause. This is the clause which is going to stifle industrial development in South Africa. This is the clause which gives the Minister the power to control any extension of industry whether by means of extension of the existing factories or the establishment of new factories. This is the clause which removes from private enterprise the right, which they have always had. to develop and extend as they have considered best, not only in their own interests but in the interests of the country. That is the main reason why I oppose it. Because of the reasons that have been advanced I am afraid that I must oppose the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. the Minister. This clause is also a clause which gives the clue to the whole intention behind this legislation. The hon. the Minister earlier was speaking about the problems and difficulties of industrialists which he must consider. He said that he was prepared to consult with industrialists as long as the consultations did not affect the basic principles of the Bill. Of course, the basic principle of the Bill is laid down in this clause. It is in subsection (4), where an extension to a factory means an increase in the number of Bantu employees. The hon. the Minister did not come out with this originally. He has now introduced it by way of an amendment to delete sub-paragraph (a) of subsection (4) and to include the word “Bantu”. This is the crux of the whole matter. I see that the hon. the Minister is agreeing with me now. This is something I cannot understand about the hon. the Minister.

I do not want anyone to make any mistake about this. That is the crux of this Bill.

Thank you. The hon. the Minister said that that is the crux of the whole Bill.

He said so during the Second Reading.

Yes, the hon. member for Heilbron reminds me. I have a copy of the Hansard on my desk in which he also said so. However, when one tries to pin the hon. the Minister down to this, he wriggles out again. If we check on the Hansard of the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading, we find that he denied it again. One minute he says that he wants to make it quite clear and he wants the whole country to know. The next minute—I do not know whether he gets prodded from behind, or what happens to the hon. the Minister—he says that that is not the intention at all and that it is the industrial development of the country that he is looking for. “We are not going to compel the industries to go to the borders,” he says.

We are not going to.

I cannot understand the hon. the Minister. One minute he says “we are” and the next minute he says “we are not”. If the hon. the Minister would care to explain this dual statement of his, I shall now resume my seat. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if he can explain to us how he can reconcile these two statements which in my opinion are irreconcilable.

In connection with the argument from the opposite side of the House in respect of the amendments, as printed, in relation to clause 3 (3), I must say, hon. members on the opposite side of the House are now tempting me to return to the old wording. I thought I was making a concession here and that I was relaxing it. If hon. members insist so strongly on having it as it was, however, I shall very seriously consider going back to the clause precisely as it was.

Then you cannot limit it to Bantu labour alone.

I am speaking about clause 3 (3), in regard to which you are pleading for the original wording. As clause 3 (3) was worded, it was provided, after various matters had been mentioned, that regard should be had to acknowledged factors, “in his discretion”. Whose discretion is this? It is the Minister’s discretion and the Minister’s discretion only. Those words are retained in the new clause, but at the end of subsection (3) we find the following: “… including conditions in connection with one or more or all of the said factors.” In the Minister’s discretion he may now, having regard to one factor only, any one, exercise his free choice in his discretion. He may then withhold approval and impose conditions.

It does not read “or”; it reads “and”.

No, it reads: “With one or more.”

†I could take only one into consideration. As it reads now, it relates to both the granting of my approval and the question of imposing conditions. Both are now included. Labour, housing, the consumption of water or any other matters which in my opinion are relevant, are affected.

You may impose conditions in that regard.

The conditions are important in this particular matter, but I am quite prepared to consider taking into account only one particular factor. I decide in my own discretion whether I shall grant approval or not. As it read before, I took nothing into consideration in imposing conditions. Otherwise I can leave it as it is. Here I cannot take only one matter into consideration. It reads: “Labour, housing, the consumption of water, or any other matters which in his opinion are relevant.” It was in my opinion. It still is in my opinion. I leave it to hon. members to decide whether they want the first or the second provision. To my mind the second one is much more lenient than the first. I think the language in the second one is very much better and more understandable.

*Now I want to say, in respect of the matters which one could consider and which could possibly be included under subsection (4), that all points raised on the Opposition side were very clearly brought to my attention by this side of the House. As an industrialist who is familiar with this, the hon. member for Florida, who spoke a moment ago, brought these matters to my attention in detail. I am aware of that. Other hon. members on this side of the House have also raised this matter. I just want to refer to one. The hon. member for Umlazi wants to add a proviso which will read as follows:

I am not prepared to accept this amendment, for the reasons I have given. Before me I have several similar proposals which came from my side of the House and which I have not rejected. I am most impressed by these. My only point is that I do not want to include incompletely in the legislation what one wishes to discuss and iron out completely, and in respect of which I want to make a decision together with the people concerned. Then, as is done in other legislation, we could do so by way of regulation. Upon the commencement it may be inserted under subsection (2) as a description of a class of factory or factories. I have a choice to make.

†I have to decide between two alternatives. I accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member and to have endless legislation making provision for certain circumstances, but no provision for other circumstances which we might be aware of or which might arise. I make the choice of discussing this with industry and in the proclamation ensuring that all possibilities of hardship will be met, with a proviso, of course, that it is understood that the object, amongst other things, of this Bill is to see to it that there is no increase in the number of Bantu workers in general, and especially in the metropolitan areas.

*If I have that choice, I choose the course I indicated during my Second Reading speech, namely to consult the body concerned. Let me make it quite clear that I am in no way committed to accept the advice of an advisory body, just as the Minister is under no obligation to accept the advice of the Economic Advisory Council. I think the hon. member was somewhat unreasonable towards the hon. member for Florida when he asked what right the hon. member had to express his opinion here. Let me make it quite clear that the Economic Advisory Council is also responsible to me. The Economic Adviser is also my adviser. and the Administration is handled by my Department, but the council remains an advisory council at all times. In the second place there is no truth in the allegation that the Economic Advisory Council was unanimously opposed to the principle of this Bill. It was purely advice given by the council, and in such a large council there are always differences of opinion, to the benefit of the country. But thirdly I just want to make the Point here that even if the hon. member for Florida was still a member of the Economic Advisory Council it would not prevent him. being a member of an advisory council, from holding his own views on matters, just as all members of the Economic Advisory Council are fully entitled to hold and express their own personal views in public life, provided that they do not make public certain confidential discussions of the Economic Advisory Council.

†Then I come to the point made by the hon. member for Durban (North), who wanted to know what case must be made out by an industrialist who seeks permission to employ an increased number of Bantu workers. Sir, it is stated very clearly in this Bill that labour, housing, the consumption of water or any other matter which in his opinion is relevant, must be taken into account by the Minister, and that includes Bantu labour. Furthermore, I hope that after discussions with industry in general we will be able to tell industrialists by way of proclamation and by way of advice exactly what the possibilities are in certain circumstances, but I am not going to be tempted into laying down the norms at this stage. I am not going to decide on my own at this stage what the formula will be, if there is going to be one, or what the percentages will be. I want to emphasize again that that is something that we want to do in consultation with industry in general.

The hon. member for Umlazi mentioned the practical example here of an electronics factory and he made the point that such a factory might be bursting at its seams and that it might then get an order from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs if my colleague, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, agreed to the introduction of perhaps colour television in South Africa. [Interjections.] Sir, I notice that the United Party is very colour conscious. What the hon. member was pleading for—and there we are not at one; I cannot meet him— was an unrestricted increase in the number of employees. That factory, whatever order it gets, will have to make application for permission to employ extra Bantu labour. I made that abundantly clear. Let me repeat, in case I was misunderstood, that the message which this Bill carries to every individual industrialist in South Africa and indeed to every businessman, every South African, is that the Government is determined that there should be no unrestricted increase in the number of Bantu employed in the metropolitan areas. Development in the metropolitan areas must go hand in hand with the development of the border areas and with the development of home industries in the Bantu homelands. One cannot divorce the one from the other.

*The hon. member for Kensington also referred to the question of acknowledged factors which must be taken into consideration. Sir. there are many factors which are acknowledged in the nature of matters, but which are not all in the national interest. As the clause was worded, the Minister, in his discretion, would have had regard to only those acknowledged factors which were in the national interest. I want to tell hon. members that I am still considering whether I should not perhaps go back to the original wording of clause 3 (3), but I do not think I should deal so drastically with industry; I think I should keep to the concession I have made in terms of the amendment.

The hon. the Minister, in dealing with clause 3, went to some lengths in an endeavour to suggest to us that the clause as it stood gave him wider powers than the clause as it now reads. In that regard the hon. the Minister interpreted the clause as meaning that his discretion applied to the imposition of conditions in taking into account one or more of these factors which have to be taken into consideration. Sir, with great respect to the hon. the Minister, I think he has misread clause 3 as it stands. Clause 3, as it stands, says that the Minister may exercise his discretion in withholding or granting approval for the establishment or extension of factories, having regard to various factors such as labour, housing, water and other acknowledged factors. Sir, that is a fettered discretion. Judging by his reply, the hon. the Minister does not want to be fettered in his decision by being forced to have regard to the availability of water, housing and labour and other acknowledged factors. He has made it quite clear to us that the one and only factor which he is going to take into account, the primary factor, the over-riding factor, is whether his consent or his withholding of consent will help to reduce the number of Bantu workers in the metropolitan areas. That is what he is now giving himself the power to do. As the clause read, the argument could have been put forward to him, “Yes, it may mean an increase in Bantu labour, but just as the railways in Cape Town find it necessary to import additional Bantu, so there are certain industries in Cape Town which require additional Bantu labour”, and the hon. the Minister would have difficulty in meeting such an argument. But once he amends the clause and no longer makes his discretion subservient to the consideration of those factors, then the only factor he need take into account is whether there will be a decrease in the number of Bantu labourers in the metropolitan areas. So far as the imposition of conditions is concerned, as the clause stands at the moment, he may impose conditions in connection with “one or more or all of the said factors”. His amendment makes the position exactly the same; his amendment says that he may now impose conditions in connection with labour, housing, the consumption of water or any other matter which in his opinion is relevant. So what he is doing is to shed what I regard as a basic principle which he accepted and which the House accepted at the Second Reading, and that was that the Minister’s discretion would be exercised subject to certain economic factors. Now he rids himself of that fetter. I believe the Minister should go back and accept the clause as it stood, and then when he exercises his discretion …

May I just have clarity? Does the hon. member prefer clause 3 (3) as it stood before?

Yes. In other words the hon. the Minister’s discretion as to whether or not to grant a permit shall be governed by certain factors, not any one of them but all those factors mentioned, namely the availability of labour, housing, water and other acknowledged factors for the establishment or the extension of factories. They are all equally important. He should not have regard solely to whether or not Bantu labour will be increased in the Western Cape. The Minister will now have to apply his mind to the acknowledged factors for development. Then he exercises his discretion when he has considered all those factors, and they are equal factors according to the wording of the clause. The only way in which labour will come into it, according to the Minister’s statement here this afternoon, is if by influx control he reduces the available Bantu labour. Then he creates an artificial labour situation and of course he will take that into consideration.

I rise on a point of order. I invite you, Sir, to rule out of order the Minister’s amendment. You will see, Mr. Chairman, that the effect of the amendment is to widen the scope of the Bill and to give the Minister wider powers than those contained in the original Bill as approved at the Second Reading. If you look at clause 3 (3) you will see it empowers the Minister to do two things. The one is to withhold or grant his approval for the establishment of a factory; and the second is to impose conditions in connection with the establishment of a factory. In withholding or granting his approval, in the original Bill he had to have regard to the availability of labour, housing, water, and other acknowledged factors for the establishment or extension of factories. That phrase is now removed and the Minister now takes to himself a wider power and the Minister may “in his discretion withhold or grant his approval”, without reference to anything whatever. In other words, he is taking a wider power. He has extended the scope of the Bill and in my submission that amendment should be ruled out of order.

As to the second power, the effect of the amendment is virtually nil, because in either case he may impose such conditions as he may deem fit, including conditions in connection with labour, housing, the consumption of water and any other matter which in his opinion is relevant. In other words, there is no difference in respect of his power to impose conditions; it is absolute in both cases. But in granting or withholding approval for the establishment of factories, the Minister has now taken a wider power than he had in the Bill we had before us at the Second Reading. In my submission, that widens the scope of the Bill and therefore the amendment should be ruled out of order.

Does any other hon. member want to address the Chair on the point of order?

On the point of order I just want to point out that the fact of the matter is that whatever has been or is mentioned here is permissive. It has been and remains in the discretion of the Minister. No matter what factors he has taken into account, the one need not have been considered in conjunction with the others. He need not produce any proof of that, because he is given the right by law which states explicitly that that is in his discretion.

But not unrestricted.

The Minister alone decides whether there are 20 factors or only one factor and whether all of them or only some of them have been written into the legislation. It is in his discretion and that is the crux of this entire clause. Once the decision has been taken under the old or the new wording, that decision is valid and cannot be tested anywhere. This is a power which is given to the Minister and I should like to put that to you, Sir.

I considered this amendment before the Committee met. I am satisfied that the Minister is not getting wider powers here than those he had. I do not want to go into detail, but the clause provides very clearly that he decides having regard to certain factors. He may have regard to those factors, but subsequently he may act in his discretion. He need not have regard to all factors. He may have regard to one or more of those factors only, and the amendment does not widen the original scope. Consequently I allow the amendment as it was allowed originally.

I want to come back to the hon. the Minister again. In reply to this debate he has just made a statement to the effect that we must all understand that the Bantu labour force must not be increased in the metropolitan areas. This is the basis of the whole Bill, namely that the Bantu labour force must not be increased in the metropolitan areas. I asked him just now to explain to us the conflicting statements he made, where one minute he accepts this point and the next minute he rejects it again. I want to draw his attention to the Hansard report dated 30th May, of the Second Reading debate on this Bill, where I was quoting from an earlier speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration where he said—

Now this is the legislation. The hon. the Minister then interjected and said—

Those were the Minister’s own words, namely that this is the intention of the Bill.

What?

To empower the Government to say to the industrialist that he is not allowed to establish his industry in a Metropolitan area; he will have to go to Hammarsdale, etc. Then he went further. When I asked him whether it was the intention of the Bill to compel industries to go to the border areas, he said “the intention of this Bill is that industries employing large numbers of Bantu workers would not be allowed to establish themselves in the metropolitan areas”. That is why I say that one minute he accepts it and the next moment he hedges. The Minister must tell us: Is it the intention behind this Bill to compel the industrialist to go to the border areas? [Interjection.] One minute he says yes and the next he says no again. Now we have been discussing the discretion he can exercise in terms of this clause. The Minister was arguing earlier that there was no need to take into consideration all these factors, but that he could consider any one factor alone. He particularly mentioned this question of the availability of Bantu labour, and that he would take this factor, and this factor alone, into consideration. That is the point I want cleared up. I cannot follow the reasoning of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise with the hon. the Minister a new point which I do not think has been raised here before. I want to say this clause sounds the death-knell of the municipalities and other public bodies in South Africa. The municipalities of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and other places advertise throughout the world: “Come to our city and establish your industries.” On railway premises we see advertised: “Come to Brakpan” or “Come to Benoni”. People are invited to establish their industries there. Now all this has gone by the board. I want to remind the Minister that municipalities depend upon the establishment of industries in their areas for more than one reason. They have to receive rates, they have to provide employment for their people. Therefore they have advertised throughout the world: “Come to Cape Town” or “Come to Port Elizabeth”. In that way industrialists are invited to establish their industries there. But they cannot do that any more.

Why not?

Because they never know if the Minister will give his consent if a factory does want to come. The Minister must not shake his head because that is so. If Cape Town advertises in England for industries to come and establish themselves here, what will the position be? By virtue of his former post he held in Britain, the Minister must realize that not only the Government but also municipalities invite new industries from overseas to come here. How can we possibly advertise overseas, how can Cape Town, for instance, invite industries to come to Cape Town before asking the Minister? Must we write to these people and ask them, “What kind of industry have you got? How many people do you want to employ? How much water, etc., do you want?” I want to say I speak as an ex City Councillor. I happen to know that municipalities are against this Bill, and against this clause particularly. It throws them out completely in regard to the establishment of industries within their areas, because of the uncertainty and the powers which the Minister now has. The Minister has power over everything.

I say that the Minister should consider this clause. I should like to see the Minister ask that this clause stand over until the end of the Bill and see whether wiser counsel cannot prevail so that he will come with a better clause than the present one. I ask him to give the municipalities an opportunity of doing something without going to the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to elaborate a little on what he said a short while ago to this Committee when he gave us his version of the clear message he was sending to industrialists. I want him to enlarge on that in one specific respect. I understand the general purpose of this clause only too well, and the Minister said in a further explanation that it was obviously the adamant intention of the Government to limit the number of Africans in employment in the metropolitan areas. That is what he said. I think his actual words were that it was intended to “see that they do not increase”.

What I want to know is whether this is going to apply also to the existing population already in these metropolitan areas? People who are known in terms of the Bantu Laws Amendment Act as section 10 Africans do they fall within the ambit of this provision? In other words, does it apply to those who have always enjoyed a certain de facto, if not de jure right—although to-day they have a certain de jure right, too—of remaining in the urban areas? I am talking about those Natives who were born in the urban areas or who have been there for ten years in the employment of one employer, or who have been in the urban areas for 15 years. Up to now, if those people happened to lose their jobs in those metropolitan areas they may seek work in the same metropolitan area without any difficulty. They simply have to report to the labour bureau, but they have no difficulty. They are given permission to seek employment. They are in a rather different category from the Africans coming in from the reserves, in other words, either as migratory workers on contract or coming in with specific permission to fill the jobs which the local urban Africans are not filling. I am thinking about certain categories which are not popular or for which there is a scarcity of labour in any case. Is it the Minister’s intention not to allow these people to be taken up in employment? After all, they are an urban population. I remember when we had the debate originally on the Bantu Urban Areas Act the then member for Kempton Park made a very interesting statement. He said it was the Government’s intention to keep the urban African population as a self-generating population. In other words, it was not to be enlarged by any numbers coming in from the outside, but it was understood that the population itself was obviously going to increase because of natural increase of the population.

Certain estimates have been worked out about the number of Africans who are going to be seeking jobs annually as a result of that natural increase. I think it was the Johannesburg non-European Affairs Department that worked out that there would be something like 20,000 additional jobs required within a fairly short period of time. If the Minister is not going to allow not only new factories which are labour-intensive to come into the metropolitan areas, but also existing factories to expand, where is the work to be found for these people? Because I do understand from what the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education said that it is not the intention to push people out without finding any employment for them whatsoever. I think the Minister must admit that as things stand at present, even with the best will in the world, with concurrent development in the reserves and on the borders of the reserves, in border industries, it is going to be impossible for the Government to set up sufficient jobs to cope with the natural increase in the reserves in order to stem the flow into the urban areas, let alone also trying to cope with the increase in the natural population in the urban African population I think one should get some clarity on this.

Going to the Johannesburg airport to-day I drove through the industrial complex just near Jan Smuts airport. There is this perfectly splendid industrial belt that has developed on the outskirts of Johannesburg. There we have fine, modern factories, well cared for, standing i-n acres of ground, gardens cultivated around them. It is the sort of thing that the London industrial area would be very proud to have. We have there wonderful, modern factories. As I drove through there the thought struck me: “What is to happen to these factories when they wish to expand?” As every industrialist will know, in order to remain competitive and in order to increase efficiency it is necessary to lower unit costs of production and it is necessary to expand in order to maintain competitive standards.

What is the Government’s intention about those existing areas? Those are labour-intensive industries. It is no good telling industrialists they must now concentrate on labour-extensive, capital-intensive industry. The situation does not necessarily lend itself to that form of industry. There are industries the natural expansion of which could absorb the increase in the urban population.

Many of the people, in fact a great number of the people living in Soweto, in Johannesburg townships, have houses on 30-year leases. They do not own their houses because there is no such thing as free-hold ownership anywhere in the urban areas of South Africa.

Why don’t they own those houses?

Because the Government won’t let them.

Because they are not there permanently.

Whatever the reason is—a person who has been born in an area and has grown up in that area is, as far as I am concerned, a permanent resident of that area. [Interjections.] The Minister’s ideas are different from mine. They have at least got 30 year leases on those houses. That has allowed, if I may say so, a whole generation of urban born Africans to grow up in those houses. What is the Minister’s intention as far as this natural self-generating increase of the existing urban population is concerned? As I say. I understand only too well the Government’s attitude. I do not approve of the attitude, but that is another thing. I believe in the mobility of a citizen in the country of his birth. These people are still citizens of South Africa, whatever the Minister may want them to be! They are not citizens of any existing homelands or anything else. They are South African citizens. But leave that to one side. Even understanding the Government’s attitude about increasing these urban populations from outside, no explanation has been given as yet as to what is to be done with those people born and living in the urban areas under the so-called section 10 protection. That, I think, is a very important point, and the Government has not vet explained it to us. I would be grateful if the Minister had something to say on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, the more you look at this particular clause, the more you realize, listening to the Minister, how difficult it is going to apply. The Minister has told us that he does not want to be bound by any norms. He said that a formula would be worked out. The way I look at the matter is that the moment this Bill becomes effective and a proclamation is issued, the only way in which the hon. the Minister can get this particular clause to work is by freezing and taking a complete census of all labour. White, Black or Coloured, in every industrial area. Only from that basis can he start working out his formula to find out how many more labourers an industrialist requires. whether they be Coloured or Bantu. The Minister has told us that the Bill is really aimed at the Bantu. If an area is proclaimed in the Western Cape he might say that industrialists can have Coloureds in unlimited numbers. If they can find the water and the housing they can have as many Coloureds as they like, but no Bantu. When it comes to the Transvaal, we have a different kettle of fish. The Minister will ask how many Pantu an industrialist has. The industrialist may say that he has 16 but that he would like to extend his factory. How does the Minister I establish a norm? He and his experts are not qualified to tell the manufacturer or the industrialist how many people he will require. They do not know, no matter how qualified they think they are. It is only the industrialist or the factory owner who knows what he requires. They may say, “We will give you five”. They will not however be able to give him any reason why he should have five more, because they are inexperienced. They may have doctors degrees but they do not know sufficient about the various industries. If they say, “You can have no more”, that factory must stagnate. The Minister produces a clause like this without giving us a norm telling us how he is going to apply it. We cannot just leave the Minister to exercise his own discretion. He has no formula. To make this clause work, the moment this Act is promulgated, he has got to freeze labour throughout the country and ask for a complete census. He has to find out the complete labour position. He has to say, “We want to know what your labour position is, and as from such and such a date.”

We know to-day.

You do not. As an industrialist, I have not seen where it is stated. The proclamation only states that at a certain date the labour situation is frozen as far as Bantu are concerned. This Bill does not only cover Bantu, it covers everybody. You are emphasizing the Bantu. Coloureds are affected as well because when you deal with the Cape you will be dealing with Coloureds. Before you can establish a factory you must apply to the Minister. An area in the Cape will be proclaimed. I am certain of this. When I apply to extend my factory, the Minister will say, “I cannot give you any Bantu but you can have as many Coloureds as you like”. But if I have Bantu employed in my factory here and I want to extend my factory and so require more Bantu, the Minister has no formula by which to come to a decision. The Minister has said that the Bantu labour position is frozen but there is no record. The only way you can do it is by taking a complete census. At a certain date you will have to freeze the labour position. At a fixed date you will have figures for the number of Bantu, Coloureds and Whites in employment and that is the basis you will work on.

That is the date of the proclamation.

You have no records. The only record available is when somebody makes an application for Bantu labour he is asked how many he employs. He might say ten but they do not know how many he actually employs. The only way you can do it is by taking a census. Then you can establish a basis. But how will the Minister work out his formula and where does he get the Qualified people to tell the industrialist how many he will require. The members of this committee—I do not care how clever they are or what positions they hold—are not qualified to tell the industrialist this.

How do you know?

You do not know how to run my business and I do not know how to run yours. I would not presume to tell you and I would not like you to try to tell me. That is how ridiculous the matter is. If you do that and you do not have qualified people, then you are subject to a charge of discrimination because two industrialists may be manufacturing the same article. One may be allowed 20 Bantu and the other only 10. The industrialist goes to the Government and says, “Why can I not have 20?” They will say,“We have made our decision”. That is how silly it is. I do not know how this clause is going to be applied. We can absolutely kill industry by applying it as it is at the moment.

It seemed to me the hon. member for Houghton was concerned about the Bantu who were already living in Johannesburg for example. It is very easy to solve that problem. At the moment there are several thousand foreign Bantu working on the mines.

[Inaudible.]

Just listen for a moment. At the moment there are thousands of foreign Bantu on the mines. If there are unemployed Bantu on the Witwatersrand then there are thousands of openings waiting for them on the mines. Surely it is common sense and good policy, if we have labour on hand in one of the large industries, which must necessarily be fed with Bantu from foreign countries …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must just listen for a moment. She cannot always be talking. There comes a time when one must listen too. It is the easiest thing in the world to assimilate those people, those people she professes to be so concerned about, into the mines straight away and in that way to replace many of those Bantu which we are now being compelled to import from foreign countries. Surely that is common sense. It is as obvious as any matter could possibly be. I cannot see why she is so concerned about them. Does she not want them to work on the mines? Why not? Perhaps they do not want to work on the mines, but we cannot always choose precisely what we want to do. If somebody so desires, as she says, they can own a house there, or at least not exactly own a house, but lease a house on the 30-vear lease system. Then they can go and work on the mines if they want to. If they do not want to they have a very peculiar choice. It then becomes a choice in respect of which we should not dance attendance to their tune. Surely we can see to more important interests than that.

I now come to the hon. member for Salt River. If that hon. member had listened to what the hon. the Minister had said he could not possibly have put forward those arguments of his. He mentioned the example of two industries which wanted to manufacture precisely the same article. The one received 20 Bantu, for example, and the other received 10. If one wants to close one’s eyes and one’s ears, then one can argue in that way. However, if one opens one’s ears and listens to what the Minister had to say, i.e. that all those requests, whether for expansion, or for new factories, will only after consultation with all the Departments in question and after consultation with the relevant municipalities where the sites are located …

By the time you have finished you will be broke.

That just goes to show us that that hon. member has no concept of what he is arguing about. Nor does he want to know. He does not want to allow himself to be convinced by the facts. He simply wants to argue like a stupid, feeble-minded schoolchild, merely so as to have something to say. What more constructive guidance can any industrialist have if he wants to go to a specific municipal area? I am speaking mainly of the Witwatersrand, because the greatest pressure is there. If I were in his shoes, I would go to the town clerk. I would say: “I am thinking of erecting a certain factory here”. That town clerk will say to him: “As far as we, as town council, are concerned, we can accommodate this and that of yours in regard to premises, housing, water, etc. Now go and advise that departmental committee, inform it of what you want to manufacture, what your labour potential is and precisely where your market, which you want to exploit in future, is situated”. Is there any more sound or more constructive method of going to work and undertaking planning than this? The hon. members on the opposite side are always saying that the Minister does not know one thing or another. The Minister will have all the possible information which is obtainable in regard to a matter such as that at his disposal, because if there is anything which he is not aware of, then any departmental official serving on that committee will be able to furnish him with all the information which he desires. On that the Minister’s final choice is based. How can the hon. member now argue that the Minister does not know this or that? He can lay his hand on any possible obtainable information in regard to that matter. He has knowledge of what is being manufactured, how large the factory ought to be, and whether if is essential. One cannot merely maintain that any factory can be established there. The question also arises whether such a factory is necessary, whether it may not perhaps be superfluous. Will the Minister and the Government as such be satisfied that the product is necessary, or that it can be exported? There is not one, there are hundres of factors which have to be available to one before one can make a decision like that. That is why there is the most competent institution on earth which a Minister can have in order to supply him with the correct particulars and advice. I think that what the hon. gentleman had to say here was really not necessary in this debate.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp has just demonstrated that he does not know anything at all about industry —not even anything about his special interest, i.e. the mining industry. It is not as simple as all that. He seems to think one must simply stop introducing foreign labour into the mines and one will then be able to absorb all the new people coming into the labour market, people already living in Johannesburg. The hon. member knows perfectly well that the mining labour system is built up on migratory labour. The people I am talking about live at home. They do not live in mine compounds and they do not get paid a wage in kind. The hon. member ought to know that wages on the mines, low as it is—and I think it is low are worked out not only on the basis of a wage in cash but for a substantial portion thereof in kind—accommodation and food.

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

Well, Sir, I wish the hon. member for Krugersdorp had not introduced this extraneous factor of mine labour.

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling. I gave the hon. member an opportunity in her first speech to talk on this point. What the hon. member is saying now is just a repetition of what has been said.

With respect, Sir, may I point out that I did not mention mine labour at all; I didn’t mention foreign labour at all.

Yes, but you mentioned labour as such.

But that is very different from employing South African born urban people, which is the question I put to the hon. the Minister, and employing migratory workers on the mines. However, the hon. member suggested that we divert that labour to come from Malawi, Lesotho and Portuguese East Africa.

Order! The hon. member must now abide by my ruling, otherwise I shall have to ask her to resume her seat.

But I am complying with your ruling, Sir. I am simply pointing out that there is a vast difference …

That is just the trouble—the pointing out.

Am I not entitled to reply to what the hon. member for Krugersdorp said?

No. The hon. member herself raised this matter in the first instance and I have allowed the hon. member to speak on it. The hon. member now is only repeating what was said by her in her first speech.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I did not raise the question of mine labour.

Order! The hon. member must resume her seat.

I shall do so, Sir, but under objection.

The hon. member for Boland said here this afternoon that in future town councils would no longer be able to advertise for certain industries to come to their areas. However, I cannot agree with the hon. member. The position in terms of the system which is being followed at the moment, is that when a specific industry wants to go to the area of a certain town council, those industries have to fill in a certain form. Certain questions are then put to that industry, to which it has to reply. Amongst other things it is very specifically asked in that questionnaire what the relevant industry’s labour force is going to be—i.e. how many White and how many non-White workers there are going to be. In that questionnaire the prospective industrialist is also asked what his water supply and power consumption is going to be and what the size of the factory which he wants to erect is going to be. Then it is the city council which has to decide whether that factory or industry can be situated within its industrial complex. There are many city councils to-day which have provisions in their bylaws in terms of which certain factories cannot be erected within that area because there are certain disadvantages in connection with the industry. All that happens now is this. Now this questionnaire must simply go to the Minister. Now I am asking what is wrong with that?

There is also the fear which the hon. member for Houghton has, i.e. the fear that Isando will not be able to expand any further. I believe that her fear is unfounded. I believe that those industries which have been established there in such an orderly fasion can go to the Minister and say that they want to expand further and that they need a specific number of Bantu for that purpose. The Minister will then be able to satisfy himself as to whether it will be to the benefit of that region. The factories there at present are in no way being affected. If further orderly expansion has to take place then this Minister is not going to order factories to be demolished. He will not act unreasonably in regard to those factories. Why should he be unreasonable? Is it not this Government which has built up this tremendous industrial area? I feel that hon. members are now really kicking up an unnecessary dust-storm. They are intimidating manufacturers outside by reading into this clause certain things which it does not really contain. The clause has not been stated ambiguously. The clause is in reality stated very clearly. We say the following to you, i.e. that the Minister and that committee to which certain powers will be delegated will not act in an unreasonable way, just as the town councils have in the past not acted unreasonably either. Every industrialist within the municipal area who to-day wants to make the slightest addition to his factory has to submit a plan to the town council. If he wants to break out a wall he must submit a plan. All that is happening now is that if these industrialists want additional labour they will have to go to the Minister. What is so unreasonable about asking a thing like that? Let us state very clearly that we are concerned about the blackening process which is taking place in our cities. But at the same time we want to say that this hon. Minister who is going to delegate his powers to that committee will definitely not act in such a way that the industrial expansion within the metropolitan area will be hampered or impeded. That he will not do and as far as that is concerned his actions will not be unreasonable.

I think one should not gloss over this problem. This is the same question as the one which I asked the hon. the Minister before. He says that in the event of an application by a factory for an increase of staff the Minister will take into consideration the question of whether it is to the advantage of that factory or not. That was the phrase he used, i.e. whether it is to the advantage of that factory or not. I submit within the light of previous statements by the hon. the Minister and by other hon. members of that side that he is not going to take that into consideration at all.

Order! I wish to point out that the hon. member must raise new arguments.

I will abide by your decision. There is the other point raised by the hon. member for Brakpan about city councils. He tried to draw an analogy, namely, that instead of an industrialist now applying to and submitting certain information to a city council, he would now have to submit it to the Minister and provide the same information, the case being dealt with in the same way. I want to put this one question to the hon. the Minister: Does he think that he, or this committee that he will establish, will have the knowledge of local conditions that a local city council has? [Interjections.] How can it? Then I want to get on to the hon. member for Krugersdorp. The hon. member for Krugersdorp here challenged the hon. member for Salt River and said he felt that the hon. member for Salt River did not know what he was talking about. I want to quote once again to the hon. member for Krugersdorp from Hansard of 22nd May, 1947, column 5315.

Yes, but I was still stupid at that time! [Laughter.]

Order!

I think that after that admission there is no need for me to waste the time of this Committee on this matter. The hon. member has made the very point that I wanted to make.

Out of courtesy I should like to reply only to one or two points raised. The hon. member for Boland made the point that this was the death-knell of the municipalities in South Africa and that all was now gone by the board in so far as international industrialists who might have come to South Africa are concerned. The hon. member for Brakpan dealt with this. The practice to-day is that a whole list of questions has to be replied to in so far as a municipality is concerned. If an industrialist wants to start a factory or an industry in a certain municipal area that municipality wants replies to a number of questions. The point is that after this Bill has become law not all those replies and all those questions are relevant as far as the Department is concerned. They will only come to the Department for the establishment of that industry without giving all those replies to my Department. Let us take one example. It is the position to-day that an international industrialist knows that he cannot open a factory anywhere in South Africa because there are restrictions in regard to water, for instance. This is only one example. That is the situation to-day. So how this can be the death-knell of what the municipalities are trying to do, I cannot see at all. I am afraid that I cannot answer the points that have been raised by the member for Houghton because the Chairman has already ruled that she was out of order and I think she was, because there is no clause whatever in this Bill and no right whatever under clause 3 to move any industry from its existent situation. And there is nothing in this Bill which debars the Minister or the Committee to give certain industrialists the right to employ Bantu. There is nothing in this Bill which indicates that the Bantu on the Reef or wherever they are cannot be employed. The hon. member herself has made the point that they live in houses which are not their own property. These people, whether the hon. member agrees with us or not, are not permanently in white South Africa. Sir, let me emphasize that our policy is that no Bantu will be taken out of his job unless there is another job available for him.

*Then I come to the hon. member for Salt River. I just want to tell him that full information is available at present. There is not one single industry employing Bantu in respect of which the Department of Bantu Administration, which deals with Bantu labour, does not have a record. This record indicates precisely how many Bantu are employed in any particular industry. This information is therefore available; there is no need to have a fresh census.

First amendment proposed by Mr. H. Lewis put and negatived (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Amendments in lines 8, 10 and 15, respectively, proposed by the Minister of Planning put and agreed to.

Amendments in subsection (3), proposed by the Minister of Planning, put and agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Amendments in subsection (4), proposed by the Minister of Planning, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. H. Lewis put and negatived (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4:

I move the following amendment—

Sir, one welcomes the amendment which the hon. the Minister has introduced to provide for consultation with the Administrator or Administrators concerned, but I wonder whether it goes quite far enough in making provision only for consultation. The hon. the Minister has made it clear that if the Act is to be operative and effective he will require firstly the support of industry. I think the hen. the Minister will concede that to a great extent he will require the active support of the local authorities and of the provincial administrations. It is for that reason that I move the amendment standing in my name, which adds to the amendment of the hon. the Minister the words “and with the concurrence of”. I suggest it because I think the Minister will agree with me that not only will it be necessary that the province or the local authority, should be consulted and should know what is going on, but that they should give their active support regarding the many facets of economic development which are in their hands, in regard to matters like roads, town planning, water supply and electricity, etc. That will be the duty of the local authority, and superimposed upon that is the provincial machinery which exists for town planning and the consultative bodies which exist for co-ordination between the local and the provincial authorities, the townships boards, etc. I wonder whether in the circumstances the Minister would not see his way clear to accepting the further wording “and with the concurrence of”. I move the amendment—

I have considered this amendment by the hon. member for Green Point and I am afraid I cannot allow it because it is destructive of the main principle of the Bill.

I move the following amendment—

It is self-explanatory, and I think it is a reasonable thing to ask that the findings should be made available to us in this House and the Other Place so that the activities of the Minister in this regard can at least be watched with some sort of intelligence by both Houses. It is simply the principle that Parliament should not only know what is going on but should be able to control what is going on. I am sure the Minister will accept the amendment.

I think that this amendment is an extreme one, in the sense that practically every action which is taken by this Department must now be laid upon the Table so that it can be discussed. This is not being done by any other Department and I do not see why this Department should do so. The hon. member appears to be under the impression still that we are still dealing with the old legislation where we negotiated with the Natural Resources Development Council. He forgets that a department has been established here which will deal with all these matters, and that there is ample time to investigate everything when this Department, as all the other Departments do, lays its report upon the Table. Then we can criticize its mode of action. In addition every member of this House has ample opportunity to put questions to the hon. the Minister in regard to any matter. It is really not necessary to lay upon the Table all these resolutions which have been adopted in regard to the various matters—and there can be a very great number.

I hope that the view of the hon. member for Heilbron is not the view of the hon. the Minister. All this amendment asks for is this. The Minister has the power in terms of this clause to cause investigations to be made into the manner in which the resources of the Republic or any portion thereof may best be exploited, developed or utilized. Is that not exactly what the Minister has said the purpose of this Bill is? That is, when he says that and not when he says that the purpose is to get all the Bantu out of the so-called white areas. If that is the object the Minister has in mind, then surely Parliament is entitled to know on what facts the Minister worked. Surely he is not going to exercise his discretion in a fanciful way, so that it is not related to any facts at all. If the Minister is entitled to have this information, and he wants it because he must act on it, then surely this House is entitled to have that information as well. How else, if the principle of ministerial responsibility means anything at all, if the principle of the responsibility of the Executive to Parliament means anything at all, can this House judge the activities of the Minister if it is denied the facts and the conclusions of an investigation on which he has acted?

You judge the tree by its fruit.

No, there is a difference. That shows a basic difference of approach between us. That hon. member says that we must give this power to the Minister and we do not care to see on what information he acts or how he acts, but we do. The hon. member must appreciate that there is something else besides the Nationalist caucus. One appreciates that in the end it is the Nationalist caucus which decides what decisions are going to be taken in this House.

No, they are just told what they have to decide.

Every rule we have in this House, and every convention in our constitution relating to the relationship between the Executive and Parliament, point to an attitude where members do have in theory a free vote in this House. If they disapprove of the Minister’s conduct, they will exercise their choice. How can one then deny this House that right? Surely hon. members are jealous of the rights of this House? All that is required by this amendment is simply that the information which is obtained as the result of an investigation held in terms of this Bill shall be tabled. Why should it not be tabled? What is there to hide? What is the Minister afraid of? The Minister has not spoken yet, but the hon. member for Heilbron feels this is wrong. The Minister will call for an investigation and he will get a report, and surely it is in the interest of the country that this House, that the people’s representatives, should know what those findings are and what was the opinion of those investigating the best manner in which the resources of the Republic can be exploited. The Government says it believes in private enterprise. Surely this information should be made available to the people, to private enterprise, so that they can develop the country. I do not understand the hon. member for Heilbron and I am sure the Minister’s attitude will be different.

The magic word today, especially in the Minister’s Department, is “planning”. But every municipality in South Africa does planning on a municipal scale. They call it zoning. Now this is national zoning. Let us see what this national zoning means. In Johannesburg, when any zoning is introduced, the newspapers publish all the details and the City Council gives all the information to the residents, to industry and to everybody concerned. But let us see what the Minister is going to do in regard to this national scheme of zoning. He will carry out investigations and, subject to the provisions of any other law, he will declare in the Gazette what he intends to do. Then, as from the date of the relevant notice issued, no person shall, except under the authority of a permit, use any land specified in the notice for any purpose other than the particular purpose specified in the notice. Everybody must know that purpose. Let us say that an area of Johannesburg is to be industrialized. Surely everybody should know. Take Jeppe, for example, which is becoming gradually industrialized. Then under subsection (3) the Minister can change any servitude registered against a title deed. What the hon. member for Durban (North) is asking is that, should the Minister exercise that power, he should tell the country and lay; it on the Table of the House so that we shall know.

I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North). May I point out to the hon. member, as I also explained in my Second Reading speech, that the specific intention of this clause only relates to resources of great national importance, and I gave a few examples. Secondly, there are many valid arguments against accepting an amendment like this, but just let me give this one example which I think will satisfy the hon. member. These reports will be confidential reports to the Minister. Secondly, it is not customary, it is not part of our system, to make confidential reports available before a decision has been taken, because one can well imagine that when it comes to matters of great national importance, probably big sums of money will be involved and it will open the doors to and invite speculation. That is not what we want to achieve. So, because it is a confidential report relating to a matter of great national importance and involving large sums of money I think it would be most unwise to make these reports available before a decision has been taken. But may I point out that the report will be available as soon as a decision has been taken. Notice of determinations will be gazetted and it will also appear in the report of the Department, which members seem to overlook. Now that we have a Department of Planning, these proclamations will be reported on in our annual report and the House will have a full opportunity to call the Minister to task and to give explanations. The report will not be disclosed, but the proclamation setting out what is being done, and also the progress from year to year, will appear in the annual report. But the report itself is confidential except, it may be, for something in it which is of public interest and which might emanate from a discussion such as one would expect during the debate on the Vote. But I cannot possibly agree to this amendment. It would be most unwise to do so.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has not put up a very good argument here. I rise to support both amendments: that of the hon. member for Green Point and also that of the hon. member for Durban (North). [Interjections.]

Order!

I shall speak to the point of the hon. member for Green Point later. My point is that in this clause the Minister is dealing not with his own land but with anybody’s land anywhere in the Republic of South Africa, and this makes this a most important clause. He has said everything is going to be confidential. We have heard that all the investigations are going to be confidential. That is what the Minister said.

It will be confidential to the extent that the Administration will know before the provinces.

This is the point I am coming to. It means that my land, or anybody else’s land, can be investigated confidentially. In other words, as I read the clause at the moment, even I will not know about it. I am very sorry, but I know how secrets leak out. I have seen secrets leak out before. I saw people come to buy land at Isipingo long before the proclamation appeared in the Gazette. I saw this and I raised it in this House—it is on record. I raised it by way of telegram to the Minister at that time. People did not come from the immediate areas, but from Johannesburg and Pretoria to buy stands at Isipingo before anybody knew what the Group Areas Board’s decision was. I mention this not as criticism but just to make my point, namely that this confidential investigation of my, or anybody else’s land, is only theoretically secret. In fact it might not be secret. The Minister can make a decision without my knowledge as to what is to be done with my land. Somebody else can get knowledge of that, and I will be the loser. I might have bought the land to use it for a totally different purpose or even for the same purpose.

I want to go a bit further. I raised this during the Second Reading debate. I want to deal with land that belongs to local authorities. The Minister can now investigate land belonging to local authorities without any consultation with that local authority whatsoever. We all know that a local authority depends to a large extent for its income on its forward planning as to the use of the land within its municipal boundaries. I venture to say at this stage that most of the local authorities I know have planned forward for many years and have set aside land to be used for industrial purposes, amongst other things. Thus they can not only balance their budget—they make large profits in many cases from this land— but they can use the profit for the development of the township, the city, for the benefit of the people who have contributed towards its welfare over the course of the years, namely the ratepayers. Now the Minister can come along and say, “I have done an investigation and you cannot use that land for the purpose for which you have set it aside, without my prior consent”. I believe that the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North) is a very good one, because it means that this Minister has to give us a report so that we can discuss it here, and not after the decision has been taken. We should like to help in this planning, apart from anything else, and we should like to know what is going on. We should like to know what areas are being investigated and whose rights are being affected. I believe this is one of the primary objects of Parliament. If you take that right away from us and put it in the hands of the Minister we might just as well not be here, because one of my duties is to protect the interests of the area that I represent. How can I protect them if I do not know what is going on in that area? This is my question: it is simple, but I should like an answer to it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is arguing as if secret resolutions are going to be taken in a secret little room in Pretoria, resolutions which the owner of the land will never know anything about. What do they really want now? What they want is that if there has to be an inquiry the whole world should know in advance that there is going to be an inquiry in respect of a particular piece of land. The true facts of the matter, however, will be that if an inquiry is going to be held, then in the first place consultations will be held with the owner so that an investigation may be carried out on the land. Surely it is necessary for people to have access to that land. Suppose it is a geological investigation in order to see what Kind of land it is, in order to see whether it cannot perhaps be used in the manufacture of glass, I nose people will have to have access to the owner’s land in order to investigate the possibility of manufacturing glass from that soil. What does that side of the House want now? What they want is this: Before the Minister intends doing a thing like this it should be made generally known that an investigation is going to be instituted into that particular land. Surely it is foolish to work in that way. After the investigation has been made and the Minister has given his decision it is published in the Government Gazette, stating that the land is going to be used for certain purposes only. I as owner, will know about that long before I know about the investigation which is to come. I will not be so foolish as to go and purchase land provisionally in respect of which I know that there is an investigation pending.

But if you as the owner are not aware of it?

It would be a very foolish owner who would do a thing like that. Then the proclamation follows and it is made generally known. Then the resolution has already been passed and it is only right that it should be made generally known. Why should it be made generally known before the proclamation appears? Surely the proclamation will make it generally known? Then my rights have been established at that moment and I am protected from that moment on. Hon. members on the opposite side are always acting as the mouthpiece of the Chamber of Mines. They know only too well that the Chamber of Mines go to a farmer’s farm for instance and take an option on that land for prospecting purposes. When they prospect there they do not make it generally known, and the Act protects them from having to publicize the facts. Hon. members on the opposite side now want us to go to work in a different way because Oppenheimer and his gold magnates are not concerned in the matter now. They want it to be made generally known because it is after ail the ordinary citizen who is going to be affected. That is what hon. backbenchers on the opposite side are. I object to that. I do not think it is correct. To want to hide behind the rights and privileges of Parliament while one is seeking to attain other ends than those in the interests of the country, is not a good thing.

Mr. Chairman, what is the actual request being made now by the hon. member for Durban (North) in this amendment which he moved? The hon. member is asking that reports of inquiries which have been undertaken by this Department should be submitted to us. If the hon. the Minister does not want to accept the amendment then it means only one thing, i.e. that we and as a House will not have at our disposal a report such as the report of a regional survey of the Western Cape which has been made by the Department of Planning. That is all the hon. member is asking for—he is asking for a first-rate report which is necessary for members of Parliament, for members of the House of Assembly, so that they may know precisely what is going on in their relevant constituencies. It seems to me the hon. member for Heilbron discussed clause 5 instead of clause 4. I think it is absolutely essential that when an investigation is made by the Department of Planning it should be made available to the House of Assembly because we are concerned in this matter. Why may we not know about it?

Because you want to speculate—that is why? [Interjections.]

Apart from the fact that the hon. member has made a reprehensible remark now, I want to tell him that a regional survey has been made of all the possibilities of the Western Cape. What speculation has taken place since this report made its appearance? This report informs us what mineral resources in the Western Cape are available to South Africa. What exploitation has taken place; what expansion has there been there; and what people have conceded themselves the right to try and get hold of certain concessions, or whatever? I think the secrecy which will result, the fact that reports of this nature will not be made available to Parliament after the Department of Planning has carried out investigations, will mean that the Department has failed completely in its duty. We must not forget that a subsequent clause in this measure does away with the old Natural Resources Development Council. This measure is now taking over the duties of that body. One of the most important duties of the old Natural Resources Council was to make investigations and make reports available. All that this side of the House is asking is that those activities and that procedure should be continued with so that we know precisely what investigations are being made and what the planning for the future will be.

Order! I want the hon. member for Heilbron to withdraw the words “because you want to speculate”. which he used by way of an interjection in the course of the speech made by the hon. member for Newton Park.

I withdraw.

Mr. Chairman, I think that hon. members are getting unnecessarily excited about this matter. Let me say that reports which can possibly be published, such as the report which the hon. member referred to, will be published. But there is no provision in the Act which provides that that report to which the hon. member referred should be published. It is the policy of my Department and of myself as Minister to publish any report provided it does not contain confidential information. Let me give you an example. This report dealing with the Western Cape was made available to hon. members without their being any statutory obligation on the hon. the Minister or on the Department. The hon. member for Umlazi also became unnecessarily excited when he said that the land which he now possessed would now be investigated without his knowledge. That is not the intention and that is not what is happening in practice to-day. But we also have an obligation to the owner or the interested party in regard to such land, not to make their private affairs available if it can lead to speculation and other things. We have a very great obligation in that regard. The hon. member for Umlazi said that we must not deprive himself or hon. members of the right to consult and take resolutions here in this House in regard to such matters. But the fact of the matter is that we are not depriving anybody of a right here. The hon. member will always have the right to discuss these matters under the relevant Votes. But let me now be practical in regard to this matter. I told hon. members in my Second Reading Speech, and subsequently, that it would only be matters of major national importance. Let me now mention another two examples to you. The first is the major silicon deposits here on the Cape Flats.

That is also in this report.

Yes. The intention is that when such a national asset exists, and it is necessary, then those assets must be preserved for posterity. Now, in this case, the Government or the Minister has up to now not had the right to conserve that specific land. Now we are taking it over. But a great deal of progress has already been made with the report and it is being done by the University of Stellenbosch. Let me underline the following. The error which hon. members are making is that it is not the investigation which is a secret. It cannot be a secret because it is being carried out after consultation with the Administrators. After the Administrators have been involved in the matter, the local authorities cannot, of course, be excluded. In this specific case the Cape Town City Council is aware that an investigation of that nature is being undertaken by the University of Stellenbosch, and that they have been asked and have agreed to cancel a housing scheme there because that land is apparently far more important for its silicon deposits and worth far more than if it were to be utilized for building purposes. But I also mentioned another example, namely the investigation of the Suikerbosrand. That is not an investigation which is being carried out in secret. The investigation as such is not a secret investigation. Hon. members must not be difficult in regard to this matter. The Administration in the Transvaal is aware of it. The Administrator and the City Council of Johannesburg are aware of the matter, and the City Council of Heidelberg has already been here to come and discuss this matter with me. It is no secret. But when such a report is published and it contains confidential information, then it would be unfair to the owners and interested parties if there were an obligation such as the one which is being asked for in this clause, i.e. that it should be laid upon the Table before a final resolution is taken. But naturally such an investigation will not only be tremendously comprehensive but it is also so that a resolution will not be taken in regard to such an investigation without the interested parties being fully aware thereof, and without their full co-operation and consent. Surely it would be foolish to take a resolution in regard to the Suikerbosrand if it was not in the national interest as a recreational resort. National interest is to a large extent being determined by the approach of the Johannesburg City Council and other city councils on the Witwatersrand as well as the Heidelberg Town Council. The requirements in those complexes are being taken into consideration. I do not think the hon. member should become unnecessarily excited in regard to this matter. I cannot allow myself to be misled by undertaking now, by means of legislation, that a report which might probably and will probably—and I say that this will be done by way of extreme exception—contain confidential information which affects individuals or other bodies should be laid upon the table before the resolution has been adopted That is why I unfortunately cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am really most surprised to hear the hon. the Minister’s attitude to this. I thought when I moved the amendment that the hon. the Minister would accept it. I am not persuaded at all by the arguments that have so far been advanced, namely that in the first place it is confidential. The hon. the Minister said that it is confidential because it is in the national interest—it is of great national importance— and that it therefore has to be confidential.

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily. Now, in the first place, why should it be confidential. All it is is an investigation into the manner in which the resources of the Republic may be exploited, developed or utilized. That is what it is. In order to do that you have to examine the facts, you have to set out the facts and then you set forth an argument. It is not only an examination of the facts and of the resources but also an examination as to how the resources can best be developed or exploited. So an argument is put up, a plan is put up. Now as the hon. the Minister says, it is in the national interest. It is of great national importance. And if that is so, then surely this is the place to discuss matters of great national importance in accordance with available facts. The suggestions that are put up should be debated here.

Not to take a decision.

Oh yes, if necessary to take a decision. But at least we should have the opportunity of debating it. We should know what suggestions are being made to the hon. the Minister by an investigation such as this and we, here, should have the power and the knowledge wherewith to say to the hon. the Minister that an argument put up to him should not be adopted because we in this House do not like it.

Would the hon. member like to apply that to the opening of a new mine?

I am not talking about the opening of a new mine. I am talking about a fundamental principle of the “volkswil”. It is absolutely fundamental. That is what everyone voted for at the last election. This is what they voted for in this hon. Ministers’ election. They voted for a man to go to Parliament to represent them, because they believed and have been told that this is the place where the “volkswil” is exhibited and manifested.

[Inaudible.]

We are not like the hon. gentleman who has just interjected in the sense that when we come to this House we apply our minds to what has to be done. I know the hon. member who made these interjections would not dare say anything about what this hon. Minister has decided. This is terribly basic. It is basically important. When we talk about our responsibility and the responsibility of the executive to Parliament, how does Parliament ever exercise any control if it does not know the very basic facts or the very suggestions on which the decision of the hon. the Minister was based. And it is a decision made on a scientific investigation, on suggestions that are made, …

Like the sitting of Iscor.

… which might or might not be proper. I am not so sure in so far as the other matters are concerned. So far certainly as a number of our public undertakings are concerned, Parliament has to be consulted before any of them for example can be dis-established. A number of our public undertakings are like that, and I will quote them chapter and verse if the hon. the Minister wants them. But I have an amendment on the next clause. I cannot discuss that while dealing with this clause, but this is somewhat related to that. It is an amendment with the object that any proclamation of the hon. the Minister or of the Cabinet, if it is the State President’s proclamation, may be negatived—it is a provision we have in a number of laws—by a resolution of this House. How does Parliament exercise its powers under that sort of provision? How does the House ever pass a resolution, or how is it competent to do so? How is it able to do so if it does not know whether the hon. the Minister, exercising these fantastically wide discretionary powers, has acted in accordance with the facts or not? It is not too much to ask that we conduct our affairs in accordance with the facts—that is all this amounts to—and to make those facts available to all the persons who are in this House and who are in the Other Place. That is where powers reside in the end. Does the hon. the Minister deny that? Does he say that he, above this House or both Houses together, should have the power to determine this matter? Does he seriously suggest that? Because this is what he has been hinting at. If the hon. the Minister does, he must get up and say so. But if he does not, then he has to …

Would you like a reply?

Yes.

I derive my power from …

Order!

Yes, but who is giving the hon. the Minister this power? This is the point. I am asking the hon. members over there whether they are really prepared to deny themselves, which is what they are doing, the facts and the information upon which they can judge this Minister when he exercises his discretion?

We have faith in him.

Exactly. Very well, they do not want to exercise their judgment; they are going to exercise their faith. Is it not just typical of the attitude of the hon. gentlemen who sit on that side? It is an attitude which they really ought to be ashamed of. They should be ashamed of the fact that the hon. member for Brakpan, for example, now says that he just has faith in the hon. the Minister. He does not want to know the facts upon which the Minister acts. He is just going to trust him. He does not want to exercise his judgment in the matter at all. Now I am asking him what on earth is he doing here as a member of Parliament.

Order! The hon. member must please come back to the clause—just the clause, and not the hon. member for Brakpan.

The point of my amendment is simply that I would like gentlemen like the hon. member for Brakpan to be better informed when they talk in this House. This would be a way of making him better informed, so that he would be able to apply his mind properly to whatever this Minister does.

The hon. member for Durban (North) asked me what my function in this House was.

Order! I called the hon. member to order and ruled that he could not discuss the hon. member for Brakpan or his position. With that the matter is finally closed.

Mr.Chairman, I would like to put the matter in the following way. Suppose all the reports came before this House. Let us now consider the following case. There are two important questions which have to be decided in this country. The one is the sitting of the third Iscor and the other the sitting of the refinery in the Republic. Now I am asking hon. members of the Opposition whether they think that we can come to a proper decision in this Parliament in regard to the question of where those two important industries should be established? We will even come to blows amongst ourselves in this House, because we cannot come to a decision: One always places one's own local interests in the foreground. The national interests will not necessarily be taken into consideration. Each representative will maintain that his constituency is the best, the most important and lays the greatest claim to those industries.

It ought to be in the national interest.

That is quite right. But do hon. members, as representatives of their constituencies, have every right to submit local interests to this Committee when it is sitting in order to assemble the facts. I think that what these hon. members are proposing here this afternoon is ridiculous, i.e. that we as Parliament should debate those matters in this House and then come to a decision on them. I want to tell the hon. member that we have every confidence in the Ministers who have to make the decisions in regard to these matters. A Minister is responsible to this Parliament for the decisions he makes. He must report back to Parliament. If his decisions are poor the hon. members of the Opposition, as well as hon. members on this side, have the right to call that hon. Minister to account and to criticize him. That is why I say that we cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North) since it will bring about chaos in this House.

If the hon. member for Brakpan has not been so keen on simply leaving everything with confidence in the hands of the Minister he would have read the amendment, and he would have found that the amendment is not a matter as to where Iscor should be located, but whether the factors taken into account by the Minister should be known to this House. Perhaps it would help the hon. member for Brakpan and myself to go back to our constituencies and to explain to them why we did not get Iscor in Green Point or in Brakpan, if we had the reports. But what is the present position? Under the 1947 Act, which still is on our Statute Book, there was a council. Unfortunately the Minister is doing away with it. Under section 18 of the 1947 Act that council, if it wished to recommend any scheme to the Minister could do so. The Minister would then look at that scheme and if he adopted it, he could adopt it provisionally. The scheme would then be published in the Gazette as the Minister decided, with or without a modification. Objections would be called for. The council would consider the objections. They would report back to the Minister and he would then make a final decision. It is a perfectly democratic procedure. I would just like to correct the hon. the Minister on one matter. He said that the report of the Western Cape Development Committee was tabled just as a matter of grace. The 1947 Act provides that all reports must be tabled in the House. So, it is not a matter of grace that we have this report under the law as it now stands.

The hon. the Minister in the Bill which we now have before us can cause an investigation to be made by whom he pleases. He is not fettered and bound in any way as to who should carry out that investigation. Then he can publish in the Gazette a notice saying what land is involved and how it shall be used. He can zone the land. He can zone the Cape Flats, for instance, for future mining development, because there might be some silica in the ground. He can now zone it to be kept for mining purposes. What happens then? The owner of that land has no right even to go and knock at the Minister’s door. He has no right of appeal. He can go to the Minister’s door and by favour be admitted and be granted an interview to say what he thinks should or should not be done and ask for a permit to use the land in some particular way. But under this Act there is no right of appeal whatsoever to anybody or to the hon. the Minister himself. The fact that he is protected by servitude rights against unfair competition by a new industry, does not help him; those servitude rights can be thrown overboard by the Minister on the advice of whomsoever he chooses to ask for advice. Sir, those are the problems which now exist under this measure. What is the safeguard for the ordinary person who has no right of appeal against any decision taken under this Act?

The courts, of course.

Sir, a safeguard has been suggested by the hon. member for Durban (North). The safeguard is that the reports of the investigating committee should be tabled in this House. I can visualize that the Minister might well appoint a committee to investigate the Cape Flats, a committee which in its composition is quite different from the committee appointed to investigate the development of the west coast of the Cape Province.

It is being done by the University of Stellenbosch.

Is there any reason whatsoever why, when the Minister comes to a decision and issues a proclamation as to what shall happen on the Cape Flats, the findings of the University of Stellenbosch should not be made available to members? After all, this cuts both ways. It might give us ground for criticism of the Minister’s decision; on the other hand, it might prove his infinite wisdom in coming to the decision to which he did come. The publication of the reasons which motivated him in coming to his decision is in the interests of the country; it is in the interests of good government and it will satisfy the members of this House. Sir, I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give further thought to the question of accepting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North). There is no value in an ex post facto publication of the reasons which motivated him in coming to his decision or in issuing a certain proclamation. The hon. member for Heilbron has attempted to draw a red herring over the whole discussion but we want to know the whys and the wherefores which brought the Minister to a certain conclusion so that he can be challenged in Parliament as to the way in which he exercised the powers for which he is asking in this particular measure.

The hon. members of the Opposition do not know what they want. What they are at present pleading for here, is not really what they want. They are asking here that the Minister should lay upon the Table copies of the findings, the conclusions and the facts arising from an investigation in terms of subsection (1). They do not want to come down on the Minister they want to criticize the persons who have instituted the investigation. They want to criticize the report of the investigating committee; it is not the Minister’s administration which they want to criticize, because the Minister has not yet taken a resolution in regard to this report. They are not requesting here that the resolutions of the Minister be published or be laid upon the Table. They must look at their own amendment; their own amendment talks about the findings, the conclusion to which the investigating committee came. They are not asking what the Minister’s resolution was; they do not want to criticize the Minister’s administration of the Act. Surely the findings of the investigating committee surely have nothing to do with the Minister’s administration; they have nothing to do with his Department. It is only an inquiry which has been instituted and a report which has to be published; that is what, according to their own argument, they want to criticize in Parliament. They want the owner to have the right of appeal against the facts. Must he have the right to appeal against the findings, or against the recommendations of this Committee? No, the hon. members do not know what they are talking about; they must read their own amendment. What does the clause provide? The clause provides that after an investigation has been instituted, the Minister adopts a resolution, and once he has adopted a resolution, it is published in the Government Gazette, after which it becomes public property. Then there is ample opportunity to criticize the Minister’s administration.

Hon. members will then have every right to criticize the Minister and take steps against him, because the information has then been published in the Government Gazette. They can then ask him on what grounds he adopted his resolution. If the Minister then replies that his resolution was based on the report, then they can ask him whether he is prepared to lay that report upon the Table, yes or no. Sir, reference was made here to Iscor and hon. members tried to present what the hon. member for Brakpan said as ridiculous, but the hon. member for Brakpan was 100 per cent correct. What hon. members of the Opposition want to know is not the Cabinet or the Minister’s resolution on the Report; what they want to know is the report itself together with the recommendations. Suppose the Report contained the recommendation that a third Iscor should be established in a town such as Witbank. The Cabinet has not yet taken a resolution in regard to the matter; the Minister has not yet given a decision in regard to the matter. But he does have a report in which that recommendation is contained. Can you see, Sir, what land speculation this would give rise to, in and around Witbank? Can you realize what a disservice is going to be done to the people in that vicinity? Perhaps the recommendation is one which should not, in the national interest, be published. What are hon. members going to achieve with this amendment of theirs? They will only be able to criticize the committee which instituted the investigation. But once the Cabinet has taken has resolution on the recommendation and published its decision, then hon. members will be able to take steps against the Cabinet or against the Minister in question. That would then be fair and reasonable. Mr. Chairman, I object to the insinuation made by hon. members on that side that we are merely a lot of yes-men and that we are not acting in the interests of the nation. We are tired of that old story of the hon. member for Durban (North), who constantly wants to hide behind parliamentary privilege. I compared him this afternoon to a coffee mill. He is a coffee mill which is no longer grinding ordinary coffee, only ersatz coffee. [Interjections.]

Order!Order! If hon. members do not want to listen to the Chair then other steps will be taken.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Planning put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell put and negatived (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5:

Clause 5 is the natural consequence of clause 4, where we reach the stage where the Minister has decided after investigations, instituted after consultation with the Administrator, that a certain area shall be proclaimed as a controlled area. Subsection (2) requires that the Minister shall previously consult with the Administrator or Administrators in regard to the issue of a proclamation. Far be it from me in the Committee Stage to want to extend or limit the powers which have been approved in principle, but I wonder whether the Minister, having accepted the principle of a consultation before investigation and a consultation after investigation, has not already envisaged that that consultation should include concurrence. I ask the Minister that, and on the assumption that that is what he had in mind, namely that consultation at that late stage will mean concurrence, I move the following amendment—

Order! On the previous clause the hon. member submitted an amendment and the amendment now submitted by him on this clause is also destructive of the principle of the Bill and I therefore am unable to accept the amendment.

I accept your ruling, Sir, but I am not quite certain how this amendment transgresses the principle of the Bill. I shall appreciate your guidance in the matter.

I have nothing to submit regarding your ruling, Sir, because the language of this clause is quite clear in that it goes no further than consultation. I am rather amazed that hon. members are asking for anything more than consultation, because consistently throughout the Second Reading debate they were crying out aloud for consultation, and that is exactly what we are doing here. It was not in my mind at all that there should be concurrence. It was only a question of consultation and no more.

The provision of this clause is somewhat wider than the equivalent provision in the 1947 Act, and the circumstances are of course quite different and the powers are much wider. The effects which flow from a proclamation under this clause are very much more far-reaching than under the old Act.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (3) Such proclamations shall be laid on the Tables of the Senate and of the House of Assembly within fourteen days after promulgation thereof if Parliament is then in ordinary session, or if Parliament is not then in ordinary session, within fourteen days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session, and shall remain on the said Tables for at least twenty-eight consecutive days, and if Parliament is prorogued before the necessary twenty-eight days have elapsed, such proclamations shall again be laid on the said Tables as aforesaid within fourteen days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session.
2. (4) If the Senate of the House of Assembly by resolution passed in the same session (being a session during which such proclamations have been laid on the Tables of the Senate and of the House of Assembly in terms of subsection (3)) disapprove such proclamations or any provision thereof, such proclamations or such provision thereof shall cease to be of force and effect to the extent to which they are so disapproved, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done in terms of such proclamations or such provision thereof up to the date upon which such proclamations or such provision thereof so ceased to be of force and effect or to any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred as at the said date under and by virtue of such proclamations or such provision thereof.

You will see, Sir, that it is a normal negative resolution as opposed to an affirmative resolution. It provides, in the first place, that these proclamations as to the controlled areas should be laid on the Tables of both Houses and that they should be so laid within 14 days after promulgation and that if, during the same session, this House or the Other Place by resolution disapproves of the proclamation, then it ceases to have any effect.

One finds that this type of resolution has to be taken during the same session and if it cannot be taken during the same session it cannot be taken at all. That is my first point. Another point is that this does not affect the Minister’s powers at all. It only means that those powers will be subject to review. This is one of the reasons why I was sorry that the amendment I moved to the clause we have just dealt with was not accepted, because I considered that hon. members here would be in a much better position to discuss intelligently the wisdom or unwisdom of any proclamation made in this regard. Furthermore, such a provision will not be without precedent. We have a similar provision in many of our Acts—for instance in so far as proclamations under Group Areas Act are concerned. So, the principle of restricting the executive powers in this respect is not unusual. Consequently, I move this amendment with much more confidence than I moved my amendment on the last clause. I hope the hon. the Minister will accept this one.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. I agree with the hon. member that section 22 of the old Act did make provision for proclamations to be tabled. In this case, however, it is a question not of reports but of proclamations. There is, of course, no withholding any information from hon. members or from the public—every proclamation is gazetted. So there won’t be any question of withholding any information in so far as these proclamations are concerned. May I point out further that these proclamations will not only be gazetted but will also be mentioned in the annual report of my Department. In the report progress will also be reported in regard to any particular area. Under "the old Act it was the practice during a number of years that these proclamations were not tabled at all. I think hon. members are aware of that. The position as I understand it is that there was no reason for tabling those proclamations. Furthermore, there was no objection to their not being tabled because they were published in the Gazette. By laving them on the Table in addition to that was regarded to be nothing more than a duplication. On account of these considerations no provision has been made in this Bill for tabling them. I think by leaving this provision out we are streamlining this particular legislation—as a matter of fact, there is no other motive whatsoever for excluding the provisions of the old section 22 from this Bill. I am sure the hon. member will agree that these are valid reasons for not including a similar provision in this Bill.

There is much merit in what the hon. the Minister said about laying these proclamations on the Table. It is true that the Interpretation Act provides that all proclamations, or statutory instruments, must be laid upon the Table of the House of Assembly and of the Senate. But one often wonders why we have a provision like this in so many of our laws. Why, in fact, does the Interpretation Act require that? An hon. Member expressed the opinion the other day that he found it useful to have these things laid upon the Table because if he scans the Order Paper he can see what has been laid upon the Table of the House by which Department. In that way he is able to give his attention to these things instead of having to go through all the Gazettes to find what proclamations have been issued. Furthermore, it is necessary that they be laid upon the Table if there is a resolution to be taken. The formula followed in our legislation over the years is that first of all provision is made for these things to be laid upon the Table within a certain specified time and, secondly, a time limit is laid down within which any particular provision can be negatived. You see, Sir, a particular provision can only be negatived during the session in which the proclamations have been laid upon the Table. That is why it is necessary to have a provision here relating to laying them upon the Table—so that one may be able to determine the scope of the House’s power to deal with a specific matter by way of resolution. I fail to see why the hon. the Minister should be afraid of this because one realizes that a proclamation will not be negatived except in extraordinary circumstances. These proclamations are, after all, issued by the State President, which in turn means that they are in terms of a Cabinet decision. That being so, it is extremely unlikely that a motion to negative any of the provisions of any proclamation will succeed—because the Cabinet obviously has the support of the majority of members of this House.

Why argue against your own proposal?

What I am doing is to try to convince the hon. the Minister that he need not be afraid of such a provision. I am trying to point out to him that by doing that he is not going to unleash powers which are going to undo that what he has done. Furthermore, this seems to me to be a very salutory provision especially in view of the powers the Minister is going to enjoy under this Bill. As I have already indicated, we have a similar provision in regard to the proclamation of group areas. Under this Bill the Minister will have the power to determine zones and areas in which the most unusual and unprecedented things can happen. Therefore, such a provision will act as a safety valve because it will give this House, and hon. members the opportunity of at least discussing the terms of a proclamation issued by the Minister under this legislation. The hon. the Minister will then have to justify his particular proclamation. To that extent it will do the greatest amount of good—at least, it can do no harm.

I want to support this amendment and ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider his decision. He has admitted that a similar provision existed in the previous Act, i.e. in section 22. Well, if it existed in that Act then the hon. the Minister must accept that there is far more reason for it to be included in this particular measure. Under the provisions of the old Act, an Act which is now being repealed, the practice was to establish industry largely by consultation, by drawing up a plan for a particular region laying down where an industry may go and under what conditions. As I say, decisions were taken upon these questions largely after negotiations, discussions and planning. This Bill, however, places all these powers without any curb whatsoever in the hands of the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister himself has admitted and accepted that to be the position right throughout the discussions on this Bill—as a matter of fact, he has consistently refused to accept any amendment which would have the effect of curtailing these powers. Surely, the Minister ought to accept that some review by Parliament is more necessary here than it was under the previous legislation—on account of the difference in character of the respective methods. I suggest to the Minister that he should have no objection whatsoever to this amendment—at least not to its second portion. I think he should welcome it. He should surely welcome planning on a national basis. Parliament should jointly accept the responsibility for that planning. We should have the right to criticize the proclamations that are made and above all else we should have the right, if necessary, to ask that those proclamations be rescinded, if we consider that necessary. The hon. the Minister has drawn to our notice the fact that these provisions have not been used in the past. Of course they have not been used. But the mere fact that a provision existed and this has to be done, this procedure has to be followed, is surely some sort of curb and some assurance to Parliament that a process exists which can be insisted upon and should be carried out as being part of the law. That will be some sort of safeguard to the interest not only of the individual but of the interest of the country as a whole. I am going to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this matter. It cannot detract one iota from the powers that he has in the Bill, and it can only do good. It cannot do anything that is bad.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes. Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr.Chairman, I move—

When we had discussion this afternoon in the Committee, the hon. the Minister indicated that he did not intend to freeze town planning schemes which are of force and effect in the country now at the present time under existing laws. In order that that position might be clarified under this particular clause I wish to move the following amendment—

This clarifies the position as regards town planning schemes which are provisional under the townships ordinance but in fact are binding on local authorities, and will maintain a status of orderliness pending any further developments under this particular legislation. I move accordingly.

Mr.Chairman, I cannot possibly even consider not accepting the amendment by the hon. member, and therefore it is with great pleasure that I accede to this particular amendment. It is of course an improvement in that it brings the Cape Province and the province of Natal into fine with the other provinces.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, this clause authorizes the Minister to delegate his powers. The powers which he can delegate are in fact very important ones and we have just had a lengthy discussion on the effects of clause 3 (3). Those are some of the powers which the Minister can delegate and we are opposed to it. We therefore intend opposing this clause.

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

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, this clause sounds the death knell of the Natural Resources Development Council. Before we go any further I would like, on behalf of this side of the House, to pay tribute to the work which has been done by this council. This council has achieved to a large extent the task which the hon. the Minister is setting himself here now but we believe in a far more pleasant and far more effective manner. Under this council planning has taken place on a consultative basis. It has taken place on a basis which has resulted in some very fine work having been done by the council and those connected with it. And I have in mind, for example the Tugela Basin Plan which came about as the result of consultation. The plan itself of course was done by the planners of the Natal Provincial Administration but with the full co-operation of this council. And that is acknowledged as one of the finest development plans that has ever been put forward or developed in South Africa. I therefore shed a tear for the council on its departing. I believe too that the principle which was inherent in the Natural Resources Development Act was one which I would far rather see than the principles which we are introducing with this Bill. So, we on this side of the House do not like this clause because it in fact repeals the whole of that Act and all that it stood for in the history of development of industry in South Africa. Now it has been substituted in subsection (2) by the permit system. This means that taken in conjunction with everything else in this Bill, that industry will now operate on a permit system. We have seen so much of this happening in this country that it is something which we do not like and against which we will vote. Up to now indstry has been comparatively free to plan for itself, to decide what its requirements are, what labour it requires and the area in which it wants to establish itself. And I believe this Bill is directly in conflict, not with ideology, but with the national interest. Now, with the enactment of this clause a new era will be ushered into South African industrial history, an era of the establishment and extension of industry by permits. I think it is a bad day for South Africa and I think a bad day for industry. I personally and the Opposition will vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to associate myself briefly with the words spoken by the hon. member—well-deserved words—words of appreciation and gratitude towards the old Natural Resources Council. I want to add my own words of thanks to those and I want to undertake to convey them to the person who has up to now been chairman of that council and who happens to be sitting behind me here. The hon. member said that he was shedding a few tears. I shall join him in shedding a few tears if I can smile as he smiled when he said that. But the hon. member knows that the good work which was done will in fact be continued by the new Resources and Planning Advisory Council. In this way the good work is not being undone. Nor is the Council being dissolved now because there was some or other fault to find with its activities. On the contrary, there is great appreciation for the work which the Council did. However, the whole situation has changed with the establishment of the new Department of Planning which is now a statutory body. I am grateful to the hon. member for the words of appreciation which he expressed from that side of the House.

There is one more word to be added to the Minister’s and this side of the House’s joint tributes to the council. I think it is necessary that at this stage it should be said. We have heard much in this debate of the claim and allegation that industrial development in South Africa has taken place under this Government as a result of its policy. I want to draw attention to the Minister’s comment a moment ago, namely that this council which is now being abolished had laid the foundation. And I want to draw attention to the fact that that foundation is part of the pattern of the industrial development of South Africa, a development for which this Government cannot claim the credit. [Interjections.] It can claim to have continued it. It can claim to have continued along the road which was planned and created by the 1947 Act, the Act which in fact was the foundation. The course that was then laid was the course which this Government has tried to follow. But I think it should be clear to all who are interested in the facts of the position, that the alleged claims which we have had throughout this debate were refuted here a few minutes ago by the hon. the Minister. I should therefore like to associate myself with the remarks which were made and with the natural corollary that flows from it.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, this is just a detail. I have not raised the matter at any earlier stage. I have never understood why this Bill has been called the “Physical Planning … Bill”. It does not seem to be a good name, and perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain to us why this name is used. I can understand the names of the Acts that are now being repealed. The “Natural Resources Development Act” seems a good name, and so does the “Natural Resources Development Amendment Act”, which came in subsequently. But what is “physical planning”? How can one have physical planning? One hears of physical exercises, physical development, and physical culture. But I do not understand physical planning. We on this side are not proposing an amendment, but perhaps the Minister has another name to suggest. How about “Development and Utilization of Resources Act”? That seems to me to be a better name than “Physical Planning …” Moreover, “Fisiese Beplanning” also does not seem right in Afrikaans.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member did not do his homework—fortunately I did mine this morning.

†I should like to refer the hon. member to the Oxford Dictionary, and other explanatory dictionaries. The word “physical” is defined as—

“Physical geography”, which is the nearest I could get to it, is defined as—

We are dealing here with land.

*Die Burger also put forward the idea that it had to be “ruimtelike beplanning”.

I did not know that— now I am in good company!

The hon. member is like a naughty schoolboy. Let me tell him something. I went into the matter very thoroughly. The translations of “physical” are also “natuurkundig of fisies”. We are dealing with physical matters here. “Physical features” is “terrein of gesteldheid”, which also fits in with the matter under discussion. “Physical force” is translated as “natuurkrag”. In passing I just want to tell the hon. member that I also consulted several bodies that are major authorities on the Afrikaans language. Several of them do in fact regard “fisiese beplanning” as the correct term. However, there was in addition so much difference of opinion that I have no right of sufficient reason to change the name, and that is why it will remain as it is.

Clause put and agreed to.

Title put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.