Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Immorality Amendment Bill, I move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

When the debate was adjourned yesterday afternoon I was dealing with the interjection made by the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I am sorry he is not here to-day. He knew that I was going to deal with the interjection made by him yesterday.

He has just entered the Chamber.

As usual, he is late on the job. In the course of the Second Reading Debate the Minister of Community Development, in addition to the interjection which he made during the course of the address by the hon. member for Musgrave, made this interjection while I was speaking, “You should withdraw your amendment”. Hon. members will remember that during the course of the address of the hon. the Minister of Finance he indicated that certain concessions had been given to the building societies. We asked that more be done in the way of housing, and when I moved that amendment the hon. the Minister of Community Development interjected, “You should withdraw your amendment”, giving the House the impression that the proposal of the Minister of Finance to advance the building societies R8½million was going to meet their difficulties. He gave the House that impression and he meant to give the House that impression. But the following day the same Minister gave an address to the Building and Construction Advisory Council in Pretoria. The difficulty is that when he made his interjection here he was on his own, but the following day when he gave that address at Pretoria, he was reading a speech no doubt prepared for him by his Department, in the course of which he said that the backlog in housing since 1964 amounted to R257 million. I have since been able to get hold of the typescript of the Minister’s speech, and this is what it says: During the first ten months of 1967, private sector plans amounted to 14,926 houses and 59,963 flats, but the houses that were built amounted to 11,559 and 39,277 flats, a shortage of 3,267 houses and 22,686 flats. But the Minister went on to say this: “But the backlog since 1964 grows bigger.”

Read it in its proper context.

The Minister gave the impression that our amendment was not necessary, and not more than 24 hours later, the Minister, in a speech to this Council in Pretoria, indicated that the backlog was of the order mentioned by him. The Minister went on to say this:

“South Africa will have to put up more buildings in the next 30 years than it has since the landing of Jan van Riebeeck more than 300 years ago.” Sir, that is our case. Our case is that the Minister of Community Development is not meeting the problem. The position has become worse since 1964, and on his own admission there is a backlog. How can the Minister come to this House and suggest by way of interjection that enough is being done when the Minister of Finance gives an amount of R8½ million to the building societies and ask us to withdraw our amendment and then have the audacity the following day to say in an address to an outside organization that there is a backlog. This R8½ million is only sufficient for the building of 1,700 houses each costing R5,000, a very small house indeed. Surely the Minister must be more realistic. He must not come to this House and make an interjection on a serious subject and then go outside and make a speech showing how serious the position is and expect the House to take him seriously. No, the hon. the Minister must do better than that. When he decides to make an interjection in this House, he must be able to back it up with hard facts.

During the course of his reply to the debate the hon. the Minister of Finance said he was disappointed with what had been said by this side in the debate because he thought we would deal with matters of principle where our principles differed from his. The difference is this. We on this side believe in the private enterprise system and the Minister said he and that side believe in the private enterprise system too. Whilst dealing with the hon. member for Musgrave, the Minister of Finance asked whether the Government are required to finance building societies. The Minister of Finance knew very well that the hon. member for Musgrave was not implying that we expected the Government to finance building societies. But we on this side do want to know from the Minister what he intends doing regarding finances in this country. During the second reading debate we raised this point and said we wanted to know what the Minister’s policy is. But unfortunately the Minister’s right hand does not know what his left hand is doing. On the one hand the Minister indicates that he wants the R.S.A. savings scheme, and he said he was very pleased with the success of the scheme, but on the other hand the Government are investing in unit open-end trusts. On the one hand the Minister’s policy is aimed at obtaining Government loans, and on the other hand the policy is to go into the private sector and encourage open-end trusts. Does the Minister regard the last-mentioned exercise as part of his duty? Does he regard it as part of the duty of the I.D.C. to go into the stock market and to concern itself with open-end trust investments? During the Second Reading Debate I mentioned that we have invested over R61 million in open-end trusts. The Minister did not deal with that point during his speech, yet he claims that this side did not deal with financial matters. The Minister is adopting the role of an ambidexterous conjurer. One moment he is in the Government sector, the next moment he is in the private sector, and he tries to operate in both simultaneously. The private sector wants to know whether the Minister has drawn a line as to how far he will go. The private sector does not know when the Government is going to compete with it. Surely we are entitled to ask whether the Minister was really serious when he suggested that new policies are required from this side of the House.

We on this side have always been in favour of the private enterprise system. This side of the House in fact established the I.D.C. as an aid to developing industry and as an aid in providing the necessary finance when the private sector could not raise it. But one suspects that during recent years a climate of national socialism has been developing in South Africa, that the Government intends to compete in all sections of the private sector. The private sector never knows when the Government will compete with it, and the private sector feels it is entitled to a clear policy statement from the hon. the Minister concerning how far he intends to go with this practice of investing in the private sector. The Minister cannot criticize the private sector when it becomes speculative, when the private sector embarks on expenditure with an inflationary colour, when the Minister’s own department, through the I.D.C. —which to-day in effect is one of his departments—embarks on financial ventures which compete with his own loan-raising schemes.

To the extent of R60 million.

I do not suggest that the I.D.C. is investing R61 million, but, according to the recent Reserve Bank report, the amount invested in open-end trusts totalled R61 million. But the Minister’s department, through the I.D.C., took a share of that amount. We are entitled to know just how far the Minister is serious when he suggests the private sector should discipline itself, when he himself is so active in the private sector. The Minister requires us to take the position seriously. He demands that the private sector should discipline itself and not engage in unnecessary expenditure. The private sector should retard its development. The Minister himself through the I.D.C. is competing with his own Treasury when his Treasury is trying to get loan funds. The Minister, during the course of his second-reading reply, said there was nothing to answer. Those points were raised during the Second Reading Debate and were pertinently brought to his notice. But the Minister, for some good reason, either through an oversight or deliberately, did not answer those points.

I now want to ask the Minister a specific question. Does the Minister favour the I.D.C. going into the open trust market? Does he regard it as sound that it should compete in the private sector? Does the Minister prefer the private sector through the I.D.C. to obtain funds in competition with funds for R.S.A. or has the Minister got sufficient funds in R.S.A.? You see, Mr. Speaker, the Minister suggests there has been double talk. I do suggest that the Minister’s own Department is acting in two different ways. Surely the Minister cannot be serious when he suggests that open-end trusts, the stock market and speculation in shares or similar matters concerning the I.D.C. are matters which are encouraged on the one hand by his Department, while on the other hand he is trying to get short, medium and long-term funds. So long as there are speculation profits, so long will the time be delayed before we can get long-term loans. We cannot say that our finances are sound until we have a long-term capital market and the Minister knows what I mean by a long-term capital market. He knows what we mean when we talk of a long-term capital market where we can get loans for a period of 20 to 30 years. I appreciate the argument used by the Minister in his reply. In his reply the Minister said that long-term loans were out of the question at present because interest rates were too high. I appreciate that. As long as there are profits to be made on these short-term ventures, and these short-term ventures are encouraged by the Minister’s own Department, then we are entitled to say to the Minister, “physician heal thyself". That is the difficulty. The Minister must not come to us with advice and doctrinaire teachings without himself putting those teachings into practice. I suggest to the Minister that he has a case to answer. The case was put to him in the Second Reading Debate and he omitted to answer it. I suggest that he was superficial in his arguments. He probably played a little politics, but I suggest that he still has to answer those questions. Is he in favour of the I.D.C. going into the private sector to the extent that it has been during the past three or four years? Does he think it is healthy that the I.D.C. should encourage this open-end trust competitive market? All this has the effect of pushing up the prices of shares. As the Minister knows we have a very small market in this country. When we have two or three organizations all buying scrip which is in short supply, the tendency is for that scrip to go up in value and the values to be inflated. The Minister warned the country that the values were inflated and that some people would get their fingers burnt. But who are stoking the fires? These organizations are trying to buy the scrip. In that climate the Minister should be setting the example, rather than putting the precept to us. I suggest that the Minister has a case to answer and that he should answer it this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, over a period of almost 20 years I have quite often had occasion to feel astonished at the United Party in this House. But I have even more often had occasion to feel astonished at the Natal members of the United Party. I am myself a Natalian and sometimes I feel a little ashamed at the way in which they are acting here. If only that hon. member sitting at the back there would afford another member the opportunity of making his speech, he might derive more value from the debate. I am not going to pay any attention to him. One of the basic requirements for participation in a debate in this House is surely that a member should at least make certain that the premises on which his argument are based are correct. To snatch an hypothesis out of the air here and build up a lot of arguments around it is surely something that any baboon can do. [Interjections.] Let me indicate now what hon. members are doing here. The hon. member for Pinetown who has just resumed his seat, said that during the Second Reading Debate I had said to him by way of an interjection that he should withdraw the amendment dealing with inadequate provision in regard to housing because the Minister of Finance had made R8.5 million available to the building societies. That is the statement he made here. But surely that is untrue; surely it is not correct. Surely the Minister of Finance did not make only R8.5 million available to them.

What else did he give?

If that hon. member does not know, then he will never know what is going on here in this House. Over and above that the Minister of Finance announced that that method of shares would be worked out for them, which could earn an investor a tax-free income of up to R400 per annum. For the investor who intends investing those amounts it entails a great deal of work, and it will attract considerable amounts for the building societies. The building societies are very satisfied with that, but those hon. members are not. They wanted to suggest to the world at large that it was only R8.5 million, and how many houses could one really build with R8.5 million? That is the impression they tried to create in the country. They deliberately suppressed the important second leg of the concession which was the most important leg of the concessions being made to the building societies.

Then the hon. member for Pinetown went further and he referred to a speech which I made at the first meeting of the Building and Construction Advisory Council in Pretoria, and he quoted one sentence only. He wrested the entire argument I was engaged on, altogether out of its context. It is correct that I indicated that in respect of housing, of other construction, commercial buildings, factory buildings and so on, there had been an increasing backlog since 1964, for which I quoted figures. The figures I quoted were mentioned to indicate that there was reason to suppose that the building industry was unable to deal with the overall demand for construction in the country. That was the argument leading up to the fact that I said that we in South Africa should make more use of preconstruction methods. But I did not say that there was a serious housing shortage. I said that there were serious problems in regard to the construction industry, in regard to the total demand in respect of that industry. In fact, I went even further and said in connection with housing that the figures which I had mentioned there, should not be regarded as indicating an actual shortage of housing, but could and should also be prescribed to other factors, such as the fact that a person who had had a plan approved, would subsequently decide not to proceed with construction, or to the fact that he could not obtain a loan in time, and would then devise other means, such as buying a house for example. All those arguments have to be taken into consideration, and that is why I said in that speech but it was not an accurate representation of the backlog in the building industry. I did in fact say so, but the hon. member suppresses it when he quotes here.

But let us see what the position is. The hon. member for Musgrave, as did the hon. member for Pinetown, tried to indicate with a great spate of words here that the housing situation in South Africa had reached a critical stage. They were completely alarmist in regard to the position. They want to imply that we were heading for a serious disaster as far as housing in South Africa is concerned. But this is totally untrue. These are exaggerated statements. I have just returned from a visit to various overseas countries, and I can inform you that in none of those countries which I visited was there such a sound housing position as in South Africa. In many countries one finds that people have to live in squatters’ camps for up to two years before they can even get their names onto a waiting list. But I do not want to discuss the position in other countries. I want to discuss the state of affairs here in South Africa.

The hon. member for Musgrave alleged that because I had said in reply to a question in this House that there was no scientifically calculated estimate of the housing requirements of all population groups, there was no planning. The hon. member then went and made this statement.

I did not say there was no planning.

The hon. member stated very clearly that in this connection we allegedly did not know what we were doing; that there were no calculations or planning.

That is not what I said.

I really think the hon. member should go and read his own speech again, because that is what he said. I made a note of it while he was talking. The fact of the matter is that it is simply impossible for any country to determine at a given juncture what the housing shortage at that juncture is. Shortages are caused by various circumstances. In this way there are people who already have accommodation, but who now want another form of housing—such as people in flats, for example, who now want houses. There are also people who already own a house, but who now want a larger house. All these cases are included when housing requirements are discussed. But in reality it need not necessarily imply a shortage of houses.

What housing shortage is there in South Africa at present? We had a survey made by all municipalities of that income group for which the National Housing Commission is responsible. This revealed that there were 4,250 Whites on the waiting list within municipal areas. That is for the entire Republic. Compare with this the fact that during the present financial year we are making more than 7,000 houses available for Whites through the municipalities—in other words, the backlog as regards economic housing is smaller than the building programme for one year. That cannot be regarded as being a serious state of affairs.

Was it not the President of the Association of Building Societies who said that there was still a shortage of 27,000 houses for Whites?

It was a president of a building society who said that. But at their congress, where all building societies were represented, I pointed out that that figure had been snatched out of the air, that it was a guess and that as such there were no grounds whatsoever for saying that. Let me give the proof of this. We are not only building according to the waiting lists of people who fall within the ambit of the Housing Commission Act. My Department went further than that. In 1966 we asked the C.S.I.R. to make a projection on the basis of population increase, with the purpose of determining what the average annual need for houses for the period 1966 to 1970. 1971 to 1975 and from 1976 to 1980 would be. On the basis of a careful investigation the C.S.I.R. made a projection of this nature and included an estimated shortage which, according to their calculation, would have been worked off by 1970. The conclusion they arrived at was that 28.200 houses would have had to be made available annually for Whites for the period 1966 to 1970, 27,000 for the period 1970 to 1975, and 30,000 annually for the period 1976 to 1980. You must take note of the fact that the average annual requirement for the period 1966 to 1970 is put at 28,200 in order to make up the backlog. If provision had to be made for the actual population increase only, that figure would have been 25,000. According to the latest calculations the State and the private sector supplied Whites with as many as 27,200 houses in 1967—that is to say, approximately 2,200 houses more than required by the normal population increase. We are therefore making up the existing backlog. It has also been my experience that we are in fact doing so. People come to me. Last week a builder from one of the Witwatersrand suburbs came to my Department. He said he was sitting with 10 houses which he had just completed, houses in the price group of R5,000 to R10,000. He said he could not find buyers for them. I went to have a look at a very attractive scheme in one of the suburbs of Pretoria, a scheme offering houses at competetive prices where a building society guaranteed that it would advance the necessary money for every house sold. And yet the houses which are being built there, are being sold very slowly. Just look at newspapers and see how the number of advertisements under the column “Houses for sale’’ have increased during the past few months—there are lists of houses stretching over columns which are being offered for sale, or for lease. In contrast to that the number of advertisements for houses being requested is decreasing. These are things which we are taking into consideration. In Port Elizabeth we have had to slow down the building programme a little because we began to experience difficulties in getting the houses which were being built there by the State and the municipalities occupied. It is true that in Port Elizabeth there is a shortage of sub-economic housing. We are giving attention to that. But in general there has been a considerable improvement. There are only certain places where there is still a considerable backlog, such as in Cape Town, but there the backlog is the result of a shortage of suitable land for development. There have been long negotiations for the purpose of acquiring land, but I shall return to the question of land later on. I want to make it very clear, therefore, that when I say that there is not a serious shortage of housing, that we are making up the backlog, there are still certain places in the country where the shortage is still a real one, but in general this is no longer the case because we have overcome that problem. In this regard I could perhaps just quote from a resolution taken by the Associated Chambers of Commerce, which held a congress in November of last year, and stated the following by way of a resolution—

But the hon. member for Musgrave has also accused the Government of possibly having to surrender R52 million to the Treasury, and he referred to newspaper reports in that connection. I want to admit that the headlines of newspapers could, in some cases, have created that impression. But I would at least have expected a man of his calibre to have read the report fully and carefully, and he would then have seen that those reports were based on a radio talk which the Secretary of Community Development held on 15th January. There the Secretary stated (translation)—

With the best will in the world one cannot read into this any reason for saying that it would entail a surrender of R51 million. The present position, as far as we are able to judge at present, is that on a total spending of more than R50 million, where we were faced with a tremendous number of problems, approximately R4 million will possibly have to be surrendered. We must remember that in the previous financial year we had found ourselves in the problematical position that local authorities were making more rapid progress with their programmes than they had originally thought, and that we then had to obtain R8 million on the Additional Estimates in order to meet those needs. That is of course an unhealthy state of affairs, and we warned the municipalities to be careful and not spend too much on their approved programmes, because that could cause serious problems for the Treasury. Now it may be the case that municipalities have been somewhat overcautious this year, but in many places problems were experienced in regard to the obtaining of proper tenders, and they had to negotiate with the Tender Board in regard to the obtaining of a proper tender price. In other places on the other hand, the land was not immediately available and the services had to be introduced, all of which made for delays. But the situation is by no means a serious one, and I think that we might even succeed in having to pay back less than the expected R4 million at the end of the financial year.

But we are considering what steps we should take in order to eliminate the problems being experienced in making housing available. One of the matters which is at present receiving serious consideration from my Department and myself, is the possibility of planning on a long-term basis. Now I know that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and Parliament will not be satisfied with the scheme in terms of which one binds Parliament in advance in regard to the spending of money because the money has to be voted annually. But nevertheless there is in the National Housing Fund, which is a revolving fund, an annually increasing reciprocating amount. We are now investigating the possibility of making a certain measure of allowance for municipalities to be able to plan in advance, on a basis of that annual reciprocating amount which is at present in the region of R14 million per annum, because planning in advance is essential if one wants to ensure that one makes delivery on time.

Another matter to which we are giving attention, is the availability of land. Hon. members are aware that it has already been announced that we are negotiating in regard to the possibility of making timeous purchases of land around the metropolitan areas and around towns and cities where there are points of growth so that it is possible for sustained and systematic development to take place. This matter is now being carefully investigated, and, in conjunction with the municipalities, this matter will be taken further so that we will not have to delay essential schemes as a result of the problem of land shortage. I want to state clearly that this will also be a method of eliminating speculation in land which is earmarked for the middle and lower income groups. It is not the intention to buy up all the land surrounding the cities, or to eliminate private initiative. It is merely the intention to make provision for a certain measure of orderly progress. In addition we are also doing everything in our power to expedite the declaration of townships. Hon. members know that I have appointed a committee to go into this matter. The committee has not yet made its report because they have not yet received all the information from all the municipal areas and all the provinces. But the mere fact that we are engaged on this, and have also induced the provinces to realize the seriousness of the matter, has already had the following result: We have the position that recently, on 21st January, the stage was reached where the proclamation of townships in the Transvaal will be able to take place more rapidly and more easily because the Transvaal Local Authorities Section has in the meantime itself instituted an investigation into the delays which could arise and are eliminating those delays. We are therefore making progress in this field.

Then I just want to make it clear that although there are no disturbing shortages in respect of white housing, the matter which will in future have to receive our attention is the improvement of the living conditions under which our people are living; in other words, the elimination and clearance of slums, and the renovation of areas which have fallen into decay, but I do not want to discuss that today. We shall have another opportunity of doing so. But as far as Coloured housing is concerned, there is a serious shortage, particularly in the Peninsula area. We are aware of that shortage, but despite the fact that we have come up against the problem of suitable building land and areas in which services can be provided we have nevertheless in the past few years expanded the provision of housing considerably. In 1965-’66 R2.9 million was spent on Coloured housing. In 1966-’67 it was R7 million, and the estimated expenditure this year will be R10.8 million. So, you can see that as the land becomes available, our building programmes are intensified considerably. But here in the Peninsula especially, it is almost a bottomless pit which one has to deal with. As rapidly as one removes Coloureds from their hessian shanties or the bush and accommodates them properly, as rapidly does the influx from the rural areas to the urban areas take place. This is therefore a serious problem to which we will have to give our attention, and we will have to see whether something cannot be done to discourage, in some way or other, the influx of Coloureds before proper housing is available for them.

In the previous debate the hon. member for Parktown made a serious plea here to the effect that we should proceed immediately with the Sectional Titles Act because that is allegedly the reply to our entire housing problem, or at least the reply to a large extent.

Part of the reply.

I want to make it very clear that in principle I have nothing against that, but sectional titles are not the reply to the housing problem of the lower and middle income groups. The reason for that is the following: We have had very careful analyses made. The construction costs of a detached house for the middle income group are at present R5.8 per square foot, whereas the construction costs of flats of the same quality are R8.05 per square foot.

Who undertook that research?

My Department, which has experience of building of both kinds, in conjunction with the Building Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. I can mention to you the example of a two-bedroomed flat of 750 sq. ft.; it costs R5,832, whereas a three-bedroomed house, which is detached, with a surface area of 983 sq. ft., in other words almost a third larger, costs approximately a R100 less, i.e. R5.700. The reason for this is the large circulation area for which one has to make provision in flat buildings—the corridors, the lift shafts and all those other things. These are all factors which entail additional costs. These are actual figures which have been verified experimentally over a period of time.

They are quite wrong.

Surely hon. members cannot tell me that I am quite wrong when these figures have been proved experimentally; they are based on what actually happened. My observation in overseas countries was also that sectional titles are something which are useful and popular in the upper income group, amongst those people who have a reasonably good income and who want to stay in a luxury flat, but who want to own it. One finds people of that type making use of sectional titles all over the place, and in America in particular they form condominiums, which are a very good idea. This works extremely well, but it is principally the upper/middle and the upper income groups which make use of them. There are of course countries where this is taking place because the density of the population is such that one can no longer make use of single dwellings; there one has no choice, but where we still have the choice, I say that the detached house, particularly for the lower and middle income groups, is still the most economical, and remains the solution to the problem. [Time expired.]

I was interested in many of the things said to us this afternoon by the hon. the Minister. Firstly, I want to deal briefly with the question of sectional title. It has never been the contention of this side of the House and certainly not mine that sectional title is going to cure the housing shortage. We have never said that. What we have said is that it is one of the best ways to help solve the problem. The hon. the Minister has given us certain figures. If I took them down correctly, he said that the cost of a 750 sq. ft. flat would be R5,832 and that the cost of a 983 sq. ft. house would be R100 less. Is this the actual cost of the building or is this the cost of the land as well?

Both.

Sir, with all due respect to the hon. the Minister, I do not know how he can calculate a figure in regard to housing and calculate a figure in regard to a block of flats and then say, “I have included the land as well”, because the land is the unknown factor to-day. I do not know what he is equating with what, and I hope he will have an opportunity of telling us how, including the land, he can get an equation.

I agree with the hon. the Minister that the granting of sectional titles will not help the person who is being catered for under National Housing, sub-economic housing and assisted housing schemes. As far as the principle of sectional titles is concerned, I think we are at one and I want the Government to get a move on. I believe it is going to help not only the upper middle class and the wealthy class but people from the middle class upwards, and it is the middle class that is faced with the problem of a housing shortage to-day. Sir, if I were an objective observer who had just walked into the House this afternoon, then having listened to the Minister, I would say that there was no housing problem except for the one or two areas in which the Minister said that he still had problems. Apart from that, however, I would have said that there is no such thing as a housing problem in South Africa, and that our position is better than anywhere else in the world. Sir, this leads to a very important question. Why is the hon. the Minister of Finance now going out of his way to make additional funds available to the building societies, at a cost to the fiscus because he is going to lose tax, if money is not required by the building societies?

They must be able to maintain a certain level.

The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that there are still funds flowing into the building societies; he knows that their recoupment of payments is of the order of R220 million per annum, which is available for re-investment. It is not only a question of maintaining a certain level, it is a question of creating additional housing. People are not going to building societies today for bonds, to stick the money under the bed, as the hon. the Minister of Transport wants to do with his Rates Equalization Fund. They go to a building society because they want a bond to purchase or to build a house. If there is no shortage, why are people doing these things; why is there this run on the building societies; why is everybody screaming that there is no money? There is something wrong somewhere and I hope the hon. the Minister will not become too sanguine on this question of housing, because there is still a very great deal to do.

The hon. the Minister told the House this afternoon, as I think he or his Department did in a Press statement, that it was now the idea to buy areas of ground on the boundaries of the larger cities in order to ensure that ground would be available at a reasonable price. Sir, we have no objection to this in principle but I hope we will have a lot more information from the hon. the Minister on this point. There has been a lot of money made out of land. Whenever there are shortages money is made. The land speculators have done extremely well, but at the same time they are performing a service. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us when he has finalized his plans in this connection how he sees the sectors for which he is going to cater for will benefit through state-owned land, municipal-owned land and privately-owned land. One of the difficulties is this. Hon. members will remember that after the war certain areas of land were set aside for ex-servicemen, land which they bought very cheaply. There was a prohibition on their selling the land for a certain number of years, but thereafter that land and the property thereon became as expensive as everything else in the surrounding area. It takes long-term planning to see that there is a follow-through so that when one section of land is acquired, it is not left at that but provision is made for further acquisitions so that the whole area does not blow up.

I was also glad to hear from the Minister that at least the Transvaal is getting on with its townships. I made certain inquiries some while ago and I gave the Minister a certain amount of information on this point. We know, from debates which we have had in this House, that there have been delays for up to seven years. I hope the Minister who, I think, has an interim report in his hands from his own committee, will get this matter cleared up as early as possible. There is too much delay and, as the Minister knows, the delay is in Government departments. The townships board has to make its submission after approaching many Government offices. Last time I spoke on this issue I said 30 but was taken to task in the Press and someone wrote, “No. 84”. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the correct figure is. The townships board and the townships sections of the provincial councils have to approach, shall I say, innumerable Government departments before they can approve a township. There are cases and the Minister knows of them because I gave him the particulars, where a township has been delayed for six years because the Department of Transport could not make up its mind whether it would put its road along the eastern side of the area or the western side of the area. They said, “Until we know whether we are going east or west, we cannot delimitate the township”. This is a shocking state of affairs. We on this side often wonder what the function of the hon. the Minister of Planning is. Perhaps he can use his offices as Minister of Planning to co-ordinate those Government sections which have to deal with the establishment of townships. Then we on this side will know he is doing a job of work. If he did this, he would be performing a very fruitful function.

I announced yesterday that the Government has decided to co-ordinate planning between the Departments of Planning, Community Development, the provinces and the municipalities.

Why did you not tell Parliament that?

I told the people who are directly interested and did not have the time …

But we are directly interested. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am glad to hear that from the Minister. We have a common objective here. We want to build homes for the people of this country as cheaply as possible, as quickly as possible, and as satisfactorily as possible. We on this side accept that is what the Government wants to do, and, of course, we want to do that as well. Let us hope we can make some progress.

The hon. the Minister of Finance in his reply to the Second Reading Debate was, I think, a little critical of the contribution made by this side of the House towards combating inflation. Now, I wonder whether the Minister really meant what he said. I wonder whether he did not make such statements in the belief that attack is still the best method of defence? The hon. the Minister knows better than I do that there are three classical methods which are employed to combat inflation. There are monetary methods, fiscal methods and physical methods. I hope I am correct when I say that everyone in this House has strong objection to physical methods of control. We on this side certainly object to them. We have had certain controls, and we still have certain controls. We have import control, building control and, fortunately only in a small measure, we have price control. I think the wish of everybody concerned with this problem of inflation is that we will be able to discard controls at the earliest possible moment. So we are left with two methods with which to fight inflation, namely fiscal and monetary. What we have to understand is this. If we are going to make an all-out attack on inflation then we must use all measures. Fiscal methods alone will not produce results. Equally, monetary measures alone will not produce results. In the same way physical methods alone also will not produce results. The truth of the matter is that one cannot work without the others, and, as I said, the Minister knows that better than I do. The three measures must be utilized together in order to produce results. We as the Opposition have a very special function in this matter. Our task is to see that the Government does its job. When only half of the job is done properly then I think the Minister will be the first to admit that it is the Opposition’s duty and task to point to the other half that is wrong and try and help the Government to do the complete job. That is our function as an Opposition. Moreover, I think we can claim that we on this side have been reasonably successful in doing just that, and I mentioned a number of factors during the Second Reading Debate. Now. the basic problem in the past has been that the Government have not tackled the problem of inflation as a whole, they have not seen the problem as a whole, on the fiscal side or on the monetary side. The result has been that when they have taken steps to correct one problem, they have suddenly seen another problem popping up somewhere else, because the solving of one problem has led to additional problems. This is so because the Government’s monetary fiscal and physical policies were not coordinated. I am going to give hon. members an example of this.

After the first relaxation of import control our foreign reserves started to drop very fast. What happened? The Government suddenly panicked and they reimposed import control. What effect did that have? The reserves immediately started to swell and, helped by large-scale spending by the Government, which was not curtailed, and the creation of credit by the Reserve Bank, the liquid assets of the banks became too high again. So what had to happen? The Government imposed import control again to try and help the reserves, but this in turn created excess liquidity. So the Government then had to impose credit ceilings on the banks to help restrain the surge forward which resulted. This is the sort of thing which we have to be careful about. We must see that we have co-ordination on all these fronts.

I think the hon. the Minister in his remarks to us during the second-reading debate was a little unkind. I really think he should have been grateful to the Opposition. He said we on this side would never suggest anything that is unpopular. But that is not our function. We are not in possession of the facts which the Government have. If something goes wrong, the Government have to take steps to cure the trouble. I think the Minister will agree that we have not been critical of those steps which we considered to be correct. We on this side have not been critical of high interest rates, and it is a very popular cry to-day to be critical of high interest rates. The building societies are complaining, the farmers are complaining, the householders are complaining. We on this side have never said to the Government to reduce the rate of interest. We will say so when the time is ripe. The Opposition never criticized the Government for restricting bank credit. As I say, when the Government does the right thing we will not criticize them. But on the other hand, when they do the wrong thing, then, in the interests of South Africa, the Opposition will indeed criticize the Government. We told the Government what to do with R.S.A. bonds. So far it has been fine. We have not criticized them on this issue yet, but we may have to in time to come. But that is something for the future. We did not criticize the savings levy, except to urge the Government to ensure that it is repaid promptly with a reasonable rate of interest. Therefore I say the hon. the Minister must not complain that we on this side have done things that will harm the fight against inflation. We have accepted those things that were necessary and we have criticized those things which were wrong and which we considered should be put right. We will continue to do that.

Now I want to turn to an entirely different matter. On the 6th February of this year I put a series of questions to hon. Ministers seeking information on commissions of inquiry which had been appointed by the Government. Some of these replies are quite enlightening. I have made a summary which I think the House might be interested to hear. We have for example a commission of inquiry appointed into the training of land surveyors. The commission was appointed in June, 1964, and it has not reported yet. I do not know what the peculiarities and the difficulties are in deciding how land surveyors should be trained because I have no knowledge of land surveying, but it would seem to me that after nearly four years, one should be in a position to know something about it. There was a commission of inquiry into the alleged threat to plant and animal life in the St. Lucia Lake. The hon. member for South Coast will no doubt know something about this matter. This commission was appointed in January, 1964. It reported in December, 1966 and the report was tabled in 1967 but no action has yet been taken. That took another four years. Perhaps the hon. member for South Coast will take the opportunity of telling us whether there is any plant and animal life left in St. Lucia Lake. I do not know. It was a long time ago that this commission was appointed. We also had a commission of inquiry into chiropractics. I know that this is a very difficult subject. This commission was appointed on the 19th October, 1962, which is nearly six years ago. The Minister of Health reported on the 7th February that the report had been received, but he gave no date as to when it had been received. No action has as yet been taken. We had a commission of inquiry into nursing. There is no more serious problem in South Africa than the question of nursing. When was that commission appointed? It was appointed in October, 1964 and it has not reported yet. A commission of inquiry was appointed into dental services and the training of non-white dentists. Is this a matter which can go on interminably? This commission was also appointed in October, 1964. It reported in January. 1968. In reply to my question as to what action had been taken, I was told by the Minister of Health that it “falls away”. I do not know what has fallen away unless the teeth have fallen away after four years.

The hon. member for Transkei will no doubt be interested in my next point. He probably knows much more about it than I do. There is a commission of inquiry in regard to the Europeans in Transkeian territory. That commission was appointed in August, 1962. It reported in May, 1963. We have had no report laid upon the Table, but we had in June, 1964, a memorandum of its contents. That is all we have had in six years. What action is now being taken? In reply to my question, I was told action is being taken “in terms of the memorandum”. We had a commission of inquiry into stock exchange matters appointed on the 15th June, 1962. It reported in February, 1965 and the report was tabled in May, 1965. When I asked what action was being taken, I was told “the recommendations are accepted in broad outline and draft regulations are being prepared”. This is what we have after six years.

We had a commission of inquiry into the Companies Act appointed on the 14th October, 1963. I know a little about the Companies Act, I have had to, for my sins, and I know that it is a difficult Act. But we have the Cohen Commission of London and other commissions to use as a basis. Five years have now passed and the commission has not yet reported.

All this raises one very important fact. I would have believed that the purpose of appointing a commission of inquiry was twofold. Firstly you appointed a commission because you had a problem of some complexity and you required it to be investigated and, secondly, because there was a certain amount of urgency about the matter. You have a problem and you must do something about it. But what do we find? We find that commissions appointed four years ago have not reported yet. Commissions appointed six years ago have reported, but no action is being taken. When will this Government learn to get on with the job? I am beginning to believe that this mystical year of 1978 has become the target for the Government. Everything will be done in this mythical year. This is one of the most terrible things I have seen, namely that commissions are appointed because it is important, and it is costly to appoint a commission, and we wait years for the report and when we get the reports, no action is taken. I cannot address my remarks to each Minister individually. I only hope that the Prime Minister who is ultimately responsible for the actions of all his other Ministers will deal with this question of commissions I have not even wanted to mention the Borckenhagen Commission and the Schumann Commission, because they are so old that they do not fall into the period for which I requested details, namely from 1961 onwards. I think that it would be an excellent idea, when I have the opportunity, to move a motion for a commission to be appointed to investigate the question of commissions. Seriously, I hope that we will have some action in regard to commissions in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown has replied to the hon. the Minister of Community Development. He dealt with a few matters, two of which have already been dealt with by the Minister. There are a few points he raised which cannot merely be left at that. The one was in respect of the laying out of townships. He alleged that in the case of certain townships there had been a delay of as much as seven years. I just want to tell him that in the Transvaal, large towns are being laid out and proclaimed in less than three years. Is it not simply the case once again of the entrepreneur being very much to blame for the delay? In the same way as one mealie farmer obtains ten bags per morgen, and the other mealie farmer 50, so there are apparently, in the ranks of the Opposition, entrepreneurs who struggle for as many as seven years to get a proclamation, and there are others who achieve the same results in as few as three years. The blame simply cannot be laid upon the Government. I want to suggest to the hon. member that he should go and look at what the entrepreneur himself is doing.

There is another matter which he touched upon, which cannot be left at that. He made the point that we want to build houses. If it has now become the desire on the part of that side of the House to build houses for the people of South Africa, then it is a desire which had its origin fairly recently, because what do the statistics tell us if we look at the data for the period 1920 to 1948? In the 28 years from the date on which a start was made with State-aided housing in 1920, up to 1948— and in that period it was mostly that side of the House who were in power—scarcely R106 million was spent on housing. If we look at the comparable figures since 1948 up to the present, a period of less than 20 years, we find that more than R520 million has been spent. What does that mean? In terms of spending per R100, approximately R85 has been spent on housing by this side of the House in 20 years, whereas R15 was spent in 28 years’ time by that side of the House. If it were true that that side of the House now wants to say that we want to build houses, then it is a desire which had its origin fairly recently. Then that side of the House must not hurl reproaches at this Government, and try and make the voters believe that this side of the House is not prepared to spend money on the building of houses. If we were to look at the average spending over those 28 years, we would find that it amounts to a meagre R4 million per year. If we were to look at the Estimates for the present financial year, we would find that an amount in the region of R60 million has been appropriated for housing, which is 3 per cent of the total estimates. It is more than 15 times as much as the average spent during the period 1920 to 1948, the only period about which those hon. members can talk with authority. But we will be the last to say that every house which has to be built in South Africa has already been built.

We are prepared to admit, and the hon. the Prime Minister did so again to-day, that there is a backlog. We are doing everything possible to try and eliminate that backlog, seen against the phenomenal growth and development of South Africa. We are only too prepared to spend more. Over the years we have been asking hon. members on that side of the House in the Budget Debate: Tell us on what we should spend less, or alternatively, where can we obtain more money so that we can spend more? Those hon. members revealed basically two lines of thought. In the first place they said that we ought to spend less money on the pursuit of ideologies. We must not try and promote separate development. It is a waste of money. That money we can spend on other things. By implication they sometimes said that if we on this side of the House would adopt a different philosophy and outlook on life we would spend less on defence.

You have a “verkrampte” outlook.

That hon. member is so obsessed with inflation that he should not talk about “verkrimp” or “verkramp”. On various occasions in this House this year we have heard the question from the side of the Opposition: What does your separate development cost? What is its price? Various replies were made. I do not want to repeat the replies. I would like to put a question to the hon. the Opposition: Are they prepared to tell us what the costs are which are attached to the pattern of life of integration which they are advocating? They cannot and they dare not tell us what the costs will be.

I should now like, with reference to what is happening in the rest of the world, to try and indicate what the costs of integration are. I should like to do so with reference to what has been happening for years now in the U.S.A. Do hon. members on that side of the House want to tell me that separate development, or segregation, is the official policy of the United States of America? Surely it is not. Surely the policy in the United States of America is one of integration, which is being imposed by means of legislation and force. Are hon. members on the opposite side prepared to tell us what the costs of integration in the United States of America over a period of one year are? Hon. members have nothing to say. Hon. members are aware of the fact that barely 10 per cent of the population of the mighty U.S.A. consists of non-Whites, whereas in South Africa 81 per cent of the population consists of non-Whites. Are hon. members unaware of the price of the material and spiritual harm and setbacks caused by the race situation in the United States of America in one year in one city? They have nothing to say. They are aware of the cost, but they are too afraid to say what that cost is. Did they not see this edition of Life of August, 1967? The front page reads: “Negro revolt—the flames spread”. Are they not aware of the state of civil war which has been created there as a direct result of integration? Do they not know that the so-called black power, is making the following demand to-day: “We want racial separatism.” Are they unaware of that? [Interjection.] We will have to forgive that hon. member his ignorance. Did they read this article about Detroit, part of which city went up in flames as a result of the policy of integration? Did they see what the headline was? Do they want to minimize the significance of the heading to that article which dealt with the situation in Detroit, which read: “City at the blazing heart of a nation in disorder.” Hon. members on the opposite side may call it a sensational headline, but it is a headline of a magazine which has never yet been well or favourably disposed towards South Africa with her traditional policy. This is a headline which mirrors a fact in respect of a city in the large, powerful U.S.A. of which only ten per cent of its total population are non-Whites. This is a situation which has been created there through the policy of integration the policy which hon. members on the opposite side advocate by implication, a policy in regard to which they are not prepared to furnish us with the costs.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 99.

Mr. Speaker, if this debate has been of any benefit in the sphere of financial discussion, then that benefit is in fact to be found in a tacit acknowledgement which my hon. friend for Parktown has just made. The hon. member for Parktown is apparently very sensitive in regard to the allegations, or the charge, which I made the day before yesterday to the effect that we were not receiving any support from the side of the Opposition in our struggle against inflation, and in order to make an excuse for that behaviour the hon. member mentioned a whole series of matters here this afternoon and stated: “We did not criticize you, we did not criticize you and we did not criticize you.” In other words, the contribution made by the United Party to this tremendous effort to combat inflation, lay therein that they did not criticize us when we took those steps. This is so typically different from the assertion which the hon. member for Parktown made a few days ago, i.e. everything we did, we did on their advice. Now he has intimated that we did this, that and the other, and that they did not criticize us on those occasions. This is the great contribution they have made to combating inflation in the country. I am glad the hon. member has put it on record. But there is one point in regard to which I want to agree with him, and that is that in combating inflation there are various methods, that under the circumstances one has to make use of each one of those methods and that one talks about the “mix”, i.e. how one must mix these methods to suit the circumstances. I agree with him whole-heartedly that all those means, i.e. the monetary, physical and fiscal means, have to be utilized according to their proportions as required at a given moment, and of course that is precisely what the Government has tried to do. Right from the beginning we introduced monetary and fiscal methods, those two very methods in respect of which I have accused the hon. members on the opposite side of never giving us any positive suggestions, contributions or support; all they did was to refrain from criticizing us, except that they often stated that the nation was overtaxed. There were difficulties in respect of import control, and let us admit this. Let us admit that on occasions when we should really have introduced stricter import control in order to get the right mix, we were unable to do so at that stage because we did not then have the foreign exchange reserves to enable us to free import control on a large scale in the struggle against inflation. If you throw your reserves into the struggle, you must know that your reserves are strong. You must not throw in your reserves if they are weak, because then you run the danger of losing your reserves, and once you have lost them, it is not so easy to restore them again, and if you set means in motion in order to restore them, it is inflationistic. You must first assemble your forces and see to it that you have strong forces, and at that stage we were unable to find the right mix, and our foreign exchange reserves were not strong enough. But as soon as they were strong enough, we threw them into the struggle as well. I think the hon. member must agree with me that as soon as it became possible to do so we harnessed each of the three horse in the right way.

The hon. member spoke about the commissions which had been appointed. I want to agree with him that there are many of these commissions of inquiry which take far too long to complete the investigations on which they are engaged, but the hon. member must remember that we are dealing here with private people who offer their free time to work on those commissions. Once you have handed over a subject to a commission for inquiry it is to a large extent in its hands, almost as if one had handed over a case to the Supreme Court, where one cannot interfere to any great extent. We are dealing here with private individuals who often, because these things are so close to their hearts, sacrifice their free time in order to serve on those commissions. One of the reasons why they sometimes take such a long time is the long distances in our country and the distribution of our population, which makes it difficult to meet. That is one of the reasons why it sometimes take such a long time to receive reports from the commissions. I think we ought to express a word of thanks to-day to many of the commissioners who are serving on those commissions and who have offered up a great deal of their time and incurred a great deal of expenditure in order to do the work.

The hon. member for Pinetown has returned to one point in regard to the N.D.C. He asked how, in my Department, I could allow a certain body to compete in the first place with the State as regards the acquisition of long-term funds, and in the second place with private initiative. In the first place I want to tell the hon. member that the N.D.C. does not fall under my Department. I think it would be a good thing, when the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs comes up for discussion, if he could discuss that matter with him in detail. As regards the question of long-term funds, which the N.D.C. was alleged to have mobilised, the N.D.C. has every right to allow the public to share in its investments, as it is doing with its selections, and other companies. I must also add to that that if the N.D.C. itself succeeds in obtaining long-term funds, then it releases the State from the obligation of giving it such funds. So it simply amounts to the same thing. If it needs funds for development, it must either find them itself or we must give them those funds. As far as its competition with the private initiative is concerned, we must bear in mind that the N.D.C. is an autonomous, independent business organization with its own management, and in order to remain in operation it must also, to a very large extent, make use of the principles and the methods of private initiative. If we were to refuse to allow the N.D.C. to do so, we would be depriving it of its arms and making it weak where it must be strong in its struggle with private initiative and other bodies making use of those principles. But I want to tell the hon member one thing: What we expect from private initiative, we also expect from the N.D.C. If we expect private initiative to curtail and slow down its development, then we expect N.D.C. to do the same. In recent years the N.D.C. has curtailed, slowed down and held back many of its projects, it had to go ahead with certain projects, because these were in the long-term interests, but it held back a large number of projects at the request of the Government.

I now come to the hon. member for Musgrave, who put certain questions to me in regard to the building societies. One part of the question has already been replied to by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, but the hon. member made certain charges against me, alleging that the Government was not handling the relations with the building societies properly. It is very interesting that the hon. member, just as the hon. member for Pinetown did, laid emphasis on the R8.5 million which the Government voted in cash for the funds of the building societies. He asked how we want to save the position by that means, because R8.5 million was only a drop in the bucket. I then intervened and put the question whether the hon. member expected the Government to finance the building societies. The hon. member maintains that R8.5 million is not enough. Does he think the State should finance the building societies and supply them with funds? Is it the policy of the Opposition that the State should take over that function, and that when the building societies have insufficient money, it should be supplied by the State? That R8.5 million is calculated as the amount which we guaranteed for loans for Government officials from the building societies, i.e. the 15 per cent which the building societies advanced to public servants, and which we guaranteed. We are now returning that amount to them, and we can justify that, but beyond that we cannot justify the Government now having to invest money in the building societies in order to bring up their level of building loans to more or less the level it stood at in previous years. I do not think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or any other member of the Opposition will agree with him that it is the task of a government to finance building societies. But then the hon. member states that it is a drop in the ocean and that one cannot save building societies with that. I just want to say this. The hon. member quoted from the statement made by the president of the Association of Building Societies, who stated—

In other words, loans for the entire year totalled R356 million, and then in a second statement the president stated that, if things went on like this—

In other words, if the present trend continues there would be a 60 per cent deficit on the previous year’s loans, and that 60 per cent works out at R213 million. Does the hon. member expect the Government to give the building societies that R213 million in order to bring them onto the same level as last year? I do not think he can expect this, because he does after all belong to a Party which is continually stating that the Government is spending far too much money. This would be a form of socialization. But I want to ask the hon. member this. Must we, as a Government, give money to people who have a good house but who want an even better one in order to be able to compete with the Joneses? Must we contribute large sums for luxury houses and luxury flats, and must we make contributions for the benefit of those people who do not like the neighbourhood in which they are living and want to move to a better neighbourhood, and who want a larger and more attractive house? Must we take it into consideration when money is loaned by the building societies, a reinstatement of loans, where people renogiate to a large extent the loans which they have paid off in order to buy a motor car with the money? I think it is interesting to note that of the total funds spent by the building societies last year, less than 30 per cent was used for new houses. One must think about this, i.e. that less than 30 per cent was used for new houses. I think the building societies could certainly make much better use of the funds at their disposal by making available a larger percentage of their funds for new houses.

Do they not finance the buying of houses?

Yes, they do, and I admit it is an essential function for them to help people to buy existing houses. A considerable portion of their funds has to be used for that purpose. But I say that 30 per cent only for the building of new houses is far too small a percentage.

Does that include flats?

No, that is for dwelling units. I am sorry. I have the figures here. It is R24.9 million for dwellings and R3.7 million for flats.

*I should just like to point out that the Government has been very sympathetic towards building societies from the outset, and still is. I regard the building societies as one of the most important financial institutions in the country, and we are proud of the fact that the building society industry in South Africa is one of the largest in the world.

Will you keep an eye on the position to see that it does not deteriorate further?

Yes, I am doing that. We have always treated the building societies with great sympathy and that is the reason why we have from time to time given attention to an improvement in the position of the building societies. But now I want to draw attention to this strange phenomenon. The hon. member announced here in the House that it was R8.5 million. That afternoon, in an early edition of the Cape Argus the following appeared, “Massive aid for building societies”. That was in the first edition. I did not see it in the second edition, but in quite a number of newspapers which I saw after that—I have not seen all of them—all that is being said, particularly in the Natal newspapers, is that R8.5 million is a drop in the ocean. It is being said that it offers no solution for the problem, but what is being suppressed, or is being printed in small type, is that these shares are tax-free. That is the important point.

How long will it last?

Those tax-free shares are more favourable than the R.S.A. savings bonds. It is for a shorter period and at a higher rate of interest, and now we are giving the building societies the opportunity of going out themselves and collecting money under the particularly favourable conditions for themselves.

But for how long will it be tax-free?

I stated clearly that it would be tax-free for three years, but that the scheme could be stopped immediately. If we see that they have sufficient funds to go on with, we may cancel the scheme, but the shares which have already been taken up will be tax-free for three years. It is really the scheme which is the most important part in the acquisition of funds but this is suppressed. The Sunday Times stated—

The hon. member and many of the newspapers suppressed this; they did not talk about it, and this is actually what we are doing for the building societies. We have always been sympathetic towards the building societies, and we continue to be sympathetic towards them. That is why I myself, and particularly my office, have been negotiating with building societies for years. But there are such things as priorities. There are other bodies which also need money, and we cannot give one particular body, if it exerts too much pressure at a certain time, all the money to the detriment of the other bodies when the building societies come to us, then we must see whether their need is really so great. What is the position? Up to the end of last year they were getting in more funds than in the previous year; they were in a more favourable position. That was not the time to act. So we waited until we saw the first signs in January, and then we acted on them. The building societies submitted three matters to me last year. I refused all three requests. They wanted to receive savings deposits from companies; they wanted fixed deposits for a minimum of six months instead of 12 months, and they wanted negotiable deposit certificates. I refused because this was inconsistent with the Bank Act and contrary to the agreement which had been made in 1965 to the effect that long-term funds would go to the building societies and short-term funds to the banks. We could not discard that arrangement. We may not accept the principle that long-term projects of building societies should be financed with short-term funds. We therefore refused the request.

At the beginning of this year they came to me with four proposals. As hon. members know I adopted two of those proposals, namely the R8½ million and the tax-free shares. The other two I refused, i.e., to borrow money outside the Republic and secondly that commercial banks may make deposits at building societies, because it would have been inflationistic to accept these proposals. It would also have been inconsistent with the principle of investing short-term funds for long-term purposes. But I accepted the other two proposals. At the moment we are considering other methods to render further assistance to them.

The accusation has been made here that the R.S.A. system has been a contributory factor. The hon. member for Musgrave stated that I would have to prove that the R.S.A. was not the guilty party. I do not know whether the hon. member is versed in law, but if accusations are made then the plaintiff must surely furnish proof. I cannot say to the hon. member:

“I had R10 in my pocket; R5 is missing; you took it.” I must be able to prove my accusation.

The building societies themselves have said that a great deal of money has been taken away from them.

Yes, that is what they are saying. I say that it is a seasonal phenomenon. This difficulty cropped up in December/January. The factors playing a role here are the taxes which have to be paid, the participation bonds, the shares trusts, the high level of the Stock Exchange, and the price war. One of the results of the price war was that people withdrew millions from the building societies and invested them in utilities such as refrigerators, stoves, etc. We are being told: You began with this R.S.A. scheme in September; now three months’ notice is required; the people were required to give notice in September and October, and the major withdrawals from the building societies and the great influx into the R.S.A. savings scheme will then occur in December/January. The figures prove that this is not true. Although we obtained R12.6 million for the R.S.A. scheme in November, we obtained R10.2 million in December; those are the months in which a tremendous amount of money was supposed to have flowed into the R.S.A. scheme.

What was the figure in January ?

In January the figure was R14.4 million, which was only R1.8 million more than in November. This is what happened in January, which was supposed to have been the month. Hon. members can see therefore that there was not really such a great inflow. Mr. Speaker, my time is short. I would just like to give this warning. It seems to me that a certain group of people have launched a campaign to-day in regard to the building societies. There is nothing which can do building societies as much damage as a campaign of this nature. It creates the impression that the building societies are experiencing a crisis. They are not experiencing a crisis; they are healthy and strong. They themselves admit that they are not experiencing a crisis. I should just like to ask that we do not allow ourselves to become the instruments of certain interested parties and create the impression that the building societies are experiencing a crisis.

Why did you lend them R8½ million then?

Surely a need is not a crisis. Surely the hon. member has also sometimes felt a need for money without experiencing a crisis. We have sympathy for the building societies, but what I do not want is that we should create a crisis atmosphere. Under the existing arrangements which we have made, I think that there are very fine opportunities for them to go ahead. But let us all co-operate and not create the feeling that the building societies are experiencing a crisis, because there is nothing which will be so prejudicial to them and which will undermine public confidence in the building societies to such an extent as this very thing.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

The “Verligtes” and “Verkramptes” Bill.

It is undoubtedly known to all members and faculty members of the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns that the Council of the Academy discovered during the second half of 1967 that that Council and previous Councils elected since 1961, had no statutory status. To set this position right, legislation was requested, and this measure is being introduced for that purpose.

The Academy was established in 1909, but it was only in 1921 that an Act was passed in terms of which its affairs are being regulated. Owing to the fact that this Act was passed, the Academy acquired a higher status of dignity and significance which would otherwise not have been the case, and the Government, irrespective of the political party which is in power, has been granting it financial support for years.

The statutory recognition the Academy was granted, has also had the effect that it has to regulate its affairs in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The Zuid-Afri-kaanse Akademie voor Taal, Letteren en Kunst, 1921 (Act No. 23 of 1921), was substituted by the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns Act, 1959 (Act No. 54 of 1959), and these Acts provided, inter alia, that the Academy may make rules as to the number of members of the Academy, the election of new members of the Academy, the constitution, the election and the terms of office of members of the Council. No rule is in force unless and until it has been approved by the State President and published in the Gazette.

In 1944 a rule was drafted and published in accordance with the above statutory provisions. However, the rule contained certain provisions, such as the names of Academy members, which did not fall within the scope of the stipulated matters in respect of which the Act granted the power to make regulations, and therefore those provisions contained in the rule were ultra vires. With the re-publication of regulations on 22nd November, 1963, this rule was reprinted word for word in the Gazette.

The Council that was in office from 1st July, 1958 to 30th June, 1961, effected certain changes in the Academy, inter alia, instead of having six members with a term of office of three years in the Council of the Academy, provision was made in a new rule for eight members with a term of office of two years, and they were elected as follows: two from the council for the faculty of arts and human sciences, two from the council for the faculty of natural science and technique, and four by the annual general meeting (two from each faculty).

However, the Council of the Academy (of which not one single member has been serving on the Council since July, 1965), overlooked an important statutory provision, namely that in terms of section 5 (3) of the Akademie Act the amended rule was to have been published in the Gazette. At the annual meeting of 1961 the Council permitted a council to be elected in terms of the new rule. The result was that the Council which was in office for the period 1961 to 1963, was invalid, and this applies to all the Councils elected since then.

The Council that was in office for the period 1965 to 1967 revised the rule which was in force then and which it regarded as being valid, and the revised version was submitted to the 1966 annual meeting. The method of electing the Council was left unchanged, and for that reason they did not regard publication as being urgent.

A new Council was elected in 1967, and on 21st September, 1967, it was discovered that that Council as well as the three previous Councils had been elected in terms of a rule which had no legal force owing to the fact that it had not been published.

The Council itself did not have the authority to set the matter right, because it was invalid itself. Nor was it legally competent to convene a meeting of members, because in terms of the 1944 rule, the only rule which was valid, a meeting, even a meeting convened at the request of members, had to be convened by the Council. The election of a new Council at a general meeting would also have created problems, because those who had become members after 1961, were not competent to stand for election or to vote and the election would have been undemocratic. In addition to that there were all the resolutions that were taken since 1961; all these resolutions were invalid and no new council had the power to validate them with retrospective effect.

The Council has now turned to the Government and requested it to set the matter right by way of legislation, and as a first step it drafted a new rule in which those part for which the Act did not make provision and which had been included in the previous rule, were omitted. This new rule was published in the Gazette in order that, when this measure was adopted, the Council of the Academy would be able to continue its activities immediately and in a valid manner.

Clause 1 of the Bill requires no explanation. Clause 2 is necessary in view of the fact that the enabling provision of the Akademie Act does not make any mention of sub-committees of the Council. In the rule the Executive, with which the Council has been working for years, is granted the power to settle matters finally, and this would be ultra vires if paragraph (g) were not added as it is being done now. In order to have statutory sanction for the division of the Academy into faculties and the making of regulations for them by the Council, paragraph (h) is necessary.

Clause 3 and 4 validate the previous Councils and the present Council. It should be noted that no actions are being validated. That is unnecessary because, if the Council is valid, its actions are valid too.

Clause 5 validates the rules that have already been published. It is necessary in view of the fact that the rules, when they were published on 29th December, were published by a council which had not yet been authorized to do so. That had to be done before this legislation was submitted to Parliament, in order to make convenient reference to it possible. Nor is it sufficient to say that the rules will in any case become valid the moment the Council is validated with retrospective effect, because they contain a few provisions which even a valid council would not have been able to make. These are the provisions which are now being authorized by clause 2 of this Bill. This clause is considered to be necessary so as to eliminate any doubt.

It seems that the members of the council of the Akademie have acted irregularly and that as a result their affairs have become rather complicated and confused. However, I feel that they have acted in good faith throughout. Perhaps their legal advice was not as good as it ought to have been. In any event, there is no reason why this side of the House should oppose this Bill. Three of its clauses are validating clauses. All of us are anxious to see the Akademie functioning again as it ought to. The second clause is an amending clause to achieve better government of the Akademie. In the circumstances we, naturally, support this Bill. Where there was a difference of opinion it was only amongst the members of the Akademie itself —in other words, it is a domestic matter and we must leave it to them to decide on their domestic affairs themselves. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we support the Bill introduced by the hon. the Minister.

This Bill has, as it was set out by the hon. the Minister, four basic objects: firstly, to validate certain councils of the Academy; secondly, to validate the election of members to the Council of the Academy for certain years, and consequently their actions and deeds as well; thirdly, to validate the rules of the Academy, as published in the Gazette of 29th December, 1967; and fourthly, to enable the Academy to expand its organization and to make it more efficient. It is in regard to the latter aspect that I want to exchange a few views.

The objects of the Academy are well known everywhere, especially to persons who are interested in the activities of that body. These objects are contained in section 4 of the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns Act, Act No. 54 of 1959. It reads as follows—

Order! The hon. member may not deal now with provisions which do not form part of this Bill.

I am quoting this because certain committees are being appointed in terms of this measure, committees which will have to deal with that type of work.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member is not allowed to do so.

I believe that owing to the amendments to the Act and what is being added in terms of this measure, these objects can be achieved better than they were in the past. I am referring to clause 2. In the Bill reference is made to faculties. With the division of the Academy into faculties and the provision of regulations for them, as stated in the Bill, the work of the Academy can in fact be organized better. In actual practice two faculties are already functioning, namely the faculty of arts and human sciences and the faculty of natural science and technique. One of the powers of the Academy is to make donations for promoting its objects. Mr. Speaker, I hope I have given you satisfaction now.

Order! The hon. member cannot deal with sections which are not affected by this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you that in respect of these donations sub-committees are now being appointed to act in connection with this matter. One of the awards is the well-known Hertzog Prize, on which I do not want to elaborate now. But whereas the legislation specifically refers—and you may look at it now, Sir—to the constitution of sub-committees of the Council and the delegation of powers to them in order to effect better functioning, I should like to address this request to the Council of the Academy and the sub-committees. Whereas the literary merits and the value of a work must be the most important requirements when that work is considered for such a sought-after prize—in other words, whereas the highest literary award should in fact be made on a literary basis— the committees which are to be appointed should keep the finger more firmly and more judiciously on the pulse of the nation and should not summarily disregard the wishes, the taste and the views of the nation when a decision is made.

Since you want to drive me into a corner again, Sir, I want to conclude by expressing my appreciation towards the hon. the Minister for this Bill. The Academy is a worthy and distinguished cultural and scientific body, and we want to have it placed on a pedestal where it will be unassailable. As an Afrikaans-speaking person I feel that this is, after all, the highest cultural body and its high standing should remain unassailable.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are indentifying ourselves as strongly as possible with the view that this Bill is necessary for correcting a technical error, and for various other reasons as well. However, I do not think that I can neglect to express my disappointment at the words used by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He tried to dictate to the Academy and to one of the sub-committees what policy should be followed in awarding a literary prize. The hon. member used the word “injudicious” in regard to the decisions made by that sub-committee in the past. I regard that as highly undesirable and decidedly wrong on the part of the hon. member.

On a point of explanation, Mr. Speaker, I did not use the word “injudicious” in my speech.

I wrote down here that the hon. member said that he hoped that things would be done “more judiciously”. These are the words the hon. member used, not so? After all, it has the same implication. We on this side … [Interjections.]

Order!

May I just quote the words I used. I said that the finger should be kept “more judiciously on the pulse of the nation”.

That is exactly what I also think the hon. member said. [Interjections.] I should like to ask what right the hon. member has to criticize the Academy here as if it had not acted “judiciously” in the past? What right has he to demand that the Academy should keep its “finger on the pulse of the nation”, or is this perhaps the view of the small section the hon. member is perhaps defending here? I am only mentioning these points in passing; I do not want to elaborate on them. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members should not discuss this matter too widely. I think I have already allowed the hon. member for Koedoespoort too much latitude.

Yes, he said too much, Mr. Speaker.

And you yourself should not make the mistake of going too far.

I shall therefore content myself with saying that we on this side regard this Bill as important. I believe that it will strengthen the Academy, in view of the fact that in the past it did not adopt what one can call a “political” attitude. The Academy has had prominent men, former Prime Ministers as well, from both sides of this House. The late Dr. Dönges was a member of the Academy. The late Mr. Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr too, was a respected member of the Academy. I am also thinking of Senator F. S. Malan and Dr. Engelenberg, men who donated money to the Academy. When the Academy celebrated its fiftieth anniversary a few years ago, it was congratulated by both sides of this House. That is why we are satisfied with a Bill such as this one which is going to remove certain anomalies.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe, however, that in this regard we have heard the full account from the hon. the Minister. We heard why this measure was considered to be necessary, and I think the Minister’s reasons are based on facts. But whether he has in fact mentioned all the reasons, all the facts, is something of which I am not so firmly convinced. I think it was clear to all of us that this technical error in regard to the rules of the Academy was—if I may use the word—“exploited” by a group of people in South Africa whom we may almost label as “un-Afrikaans”. This section wanted to harness the Academy for their own purposes. That is why I am glad that this step is being taken to-day and that this Bill is before us. I am not the only one who says that the Academy is being abused in a certain respect. In this regard I want to quote what was published in Die Beeld. The observations in this weekly publication do not refer specifically to this measure, but to other occurrences. I quote (translation)—

—that is the Council of the Academy—

The report goes on and states that there was a feeling in the ranks of the Academy that the Academy was becoming “un-National and even liberalistic”. Hence the hon. member’s words to the effect that the finger had not been kept judiciously on the pulse of the nation. As I am saying, it is a good thing that we have this Bill, it is a good thing that the actions of the Academy should be executed. I want to say that none of us on this side, and I hope the majority on that side as well …

Order! How does the hon. member propose to “execute” them?

I mean “set right”, Sir. I think the execution would have come from certain hon. members on that side. As I am saying, all of us are probably in favour of the fact that the hon. the Minister now wants to set those matters right by means of this measure. I believe that this Bill is, be it directly or indirectly, a reprimand to those persons who wanted to use the Academy for their own purposes. I also want to repeat what I said, namely that we on this side will not even dare under any circumstances to dictate to the Academy to whom they should award certain prizes and what norms and values they should apply, apart from the value and norm of the merits themselves. We on this side regard it as reprehensible, and I believe that most of the hon. members opposite also regard it as such, that words were used such as those used in that regard by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and who intended them as a slight reprimand to the Academy. I believe that this legislation is a reprimand, directly or indirectly, to those people who tried to use the Academy, in the words of N. P. van Wyk Louw, “to subjugate the Afrikaans language to a small, politico-sectarian group of super-censors”. Fortunately we have this Bill now and this matter will be cleared up in the future. Other than that I do not want to say much, but if hon. members opposite want to say something, they are free to do so and actually show us what can be said about this Bill. The Academy’s critics, of whom one heard such a great deal during the past few months, seem to be very sparsely scattered in the House this afternoon. Where are the people who had something against the Academy in the past? If we were to have had a division here on this Bill, how would they have voted? Why do they shine so through their absence? I see that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is at least here. He is supposed to be so super-conservative.

I challenge you to call for a division.

Of course, we on this side do vote; what we do find interesting, however, is to note which persons are absent this afternoon.

I am sorry that you are voting in favour of it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. the Prime Minister is sorry that I am voting in favour of it, since the previous Prime Minister …

I do not like to have a man who drags everything into the mire voting on my side.

There is no question of things being dragged into the mire in this matter. Things were revealed which happened during the past year and which made headlines in the Afrikaans newspapers of which the hon. the Prime Minister was the chairman until recently and in which he still has a very large share.

I suppose that is one of the reasons why he resigned.

My hon. Leader asks whether that is perhaps one of the reasons why the hon. the Prime Minister resigned, but, of course, one need not even go into that matter. This is a topical question. If the hon. the Prime Minister talks about the mire in this regard, it is a charge against the newspapers of the Nationalist Party which brought this matter up. But to my mind that charge is unfair. In the interests of the Afrikaans language, in the interests of things which have been done against the Afrikaans language, these newspapers came forward and lifted the veil which concealed what was happening in the Academy. In that regard I am siding with these newspapers. If the hon. the Prime Minister criticizes me, he is criticizing them as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to content myself with this. I do not quite want to congratulate the hon. the Minister, but I do want to express my satisfaction at the fact that he introduced this Bill, and I want to repeat that we are supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Kensington for the unqualified way in which he spoke and for his support, because this is a cause which deserves support. However, I do not even want to make an attempt descending to the level to which the hon. member for Orange Grove descended in a very poor and unsuccessful attempt at really descending into the mire to see whether he could find or gain something there. This has totally spoilt the high standard which has been maintained in this debate so far, and I would rather restrain myself from adding anything to that, for fear that you, Sir, will call me to order, because such a thing cannot meet with any approval in a place where one does not expect to find adolescents, but adults. That is why I appreciate the real support …

Did you tell that to the newspapers which raised this matter?

I have nothing to do with the newspapers. I have nothing to do with the matter. If the hon. member had deemed it fit to say that, then I shall not follow him in those arguments of his.

I am glad of the support. What we are dealing with here, is the task of a government. A bona fide review was made of certain statutory provisions which had to be observed. No evil intentions were involved. As I said, this was discovered on 21st September, 1967. The request that was made to the Government, was that it should validate what was done illegally. That is what we are dealing with here— not with the domestic affairs of that body.

Motion put and agreet to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

To me it is a very great privilege and a great occasion to recommend to the House of Assembly the placing of this Bill on the Statute Book. Well over a year ago I explained in a statement to the Press that the natural and applied sciences had experienced a hitherto unknown rapid development from the last world war up to the present time, while the human sciences had possibly not developed to the same extent. The Government is, however, constantly giving attention to the development of all sciences: over the entire wide front and to the utilization, by means of research, of scientific knowledge for the progress of our country.

In order to promote research, a number of statutory, autonomous bodies have been established, such as the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (C.S.I.R.) for research in the spheres of natural sciences and industry, the Atomic Energy Board, more specifically for atomic research, and the Bureau of Standards for the standardization of merchandize and the manufacturing processes thereof.

In order to make provision for the necessary development of the human sciences and to place them on an equal footing with the natural sciences, the Government has decided to detach the National Bureau of Educational and Social Research, which is a division of the Department of Higher Education, and the National Council for Social Research which functions under that Department, from the Public Service and to convert them into an organization under the Ministry of National Education. In this way the human sciences will be able to make a full and equal contribution to the knowledge necessary for the development of the country.

The Bill embodies the functions of, firstly, the National Bureau of Educational and Social Research, which is a division of the Department of Higher Education; secondly, the National Council for Social Research, which is functioning under the Department of Higher Education; thirdly, the Interdepartmental Advisory Committee for Educational and Social Research, which was established as long ago as 1953; and finally, the Advisory Committee for Manpower Research and Planning, which was established in terms of a Government resolution.

Human sciences research has now reached such a stage of development that the situation not only has to be consolidated, but that a new organization has to be established outside the Public Service for further development.

As regards the origin of the present National Council for Social Research, Mr. Speaker, we must bear in mind that the first attempt to encourage and co-ordinate research in South Africa on a national basis dates from World War I. In 1916 the Industrial Advisory Council was established. Its object was the promotion of the production of war material. In 1918 this body became the Research Grants Council and its object was to promote research in general, but with particular reference to the natural sciences.

A growing realization of the need to encourage research in the social sphere gave rise to the establishment of the South African Council for Educational and Social Research in 1934. The Council was under the chairmanship of the Minister of Education and obtained its funds from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

In 1938 the Research Grants Council became the National Research Council and although the promotion of the natural sciences was its main object, a small portion of its funds was made available to support research into the social or human sciences.

A large step forward in the organization of research was taken in 1945 when the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research was established by legislation for the promotion of research in the spheres of industry and natural sciences. There was no room for the human sciences in that organization.

In order to promote research in the sphere of human sciences, the Minister of Education established the National Council for Social Research in 1946—previously known as the South African Council for Educational, Sociological and Humanistic Research. The newly established National Council for Social Research took over the functions of the old South African Council for Educational and Social Research as well as those of the National Research Council which had not been transferred to the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.

The National Council for Social Research was established with a view to the following objects and functions: To assist in, encourage, organize and co-ordinate research in the sphere of all human sciences; to encourage and to undertake the planning of research schemes; to ensure that moneys will be used effectively and economically; to establish, where necessary, bodies for conducting long-term research work; to encourage the training of researchers by means of grants and bursaries to selected people who will be employed by university departments, government departments and other institutions after having qualified as such; to provide information, liaison as well as statistical services and to assist in the publication of results and other material valuable to research work; generally to frame a policy in respect of research work and to keep the Government and the country informed of the needs in connection with research work; to obtain and to administer donations, and to publish results of research work through the medium of a distinguished journal, namely the Journal for Social Research.

In order to advise the National Council for Social Research in respect of its functions, a number of committees of experts has been appointed, namely for Sociology; for Education and Psychology, for Economics, Trade and Geography; for African Studies, and for History, Languages and Law.

The functions of the committees are to recommend problems and schemes for research to the Council and to assist in the co-ordination of work in their spheres; to advise the Council in connection with the drawing up of estimates and the allocation of grants to applicants; to evaluate periodical progress reports of researchers and to report to the Council; to prepare a reasearch programme for long term as well as short term projects for consideration by the Council; to recommend to the Council steps for the encouragement of research work; and to make representations to the Council in connection with all matters under the control of the Council which relate to their specific spheres of research.

In addition a committee for general affairs and an editorial committee for the Journal for Social Research have been appointed. The first body, the National Bureau of Educational and Social Research, provides the secretarial services of the National Council for Social Research, the history of which I have given a brief outline, and the director of the Bureau is ex officio a member of the Council and of all the committees of experts. He also acts as chairman of the editorial committee for the Journal of Social Research.

Social research has made phenomenal progress under the regime of the National Council for Social Research. The amounts of money spent on this, give an indication of the growth there has been in this sphere. In 1946 the National Council for Social Research started with a meagre amount of £1,300, which had been taken over from the then no longer existing South African Council for Educational and Social Research. For the financial year 1947-’48 the budget of the Council was £13,000. The funds of the Council gradually increased as the need for social research grew, with the result that an amount of £85,000 was made available for the financial year 1960-’61, and R250,000 for the financial year 1965-’66. It is hoped that the amount for 1968-’69 will be increased to R325,000.

The Council makes the following types of grants: Firstly, ad hoc grants to individual researchers and to students doing research for obtaining Master’s and Doctor’s degrees; secondly, grants for large research projects conducted by teams of researchers—a maximum of R1,800 over three years; thirdly, senior bursaries to advance researchers for research in South Africa and overseas, bursaries for directional research for training in specialized research techniques overseas and bursaries to students for Master’s and Doctor’s degrees; and finally, grants to research publications to make possible the publication of high-class research reports with a limited circulation.

Since its establishment in 1946, the National Council for Social Research has given financial support to numerous smaller and larger research projects of national importance— research which could never have taken place without this support.

In order to eliminate overlapping and to keep interested parties informed of research which is in progress, the Council regularly publishes a register of present research in human sciences in South Africa, and to make the publication of research reports in article form possible, the Council publishes the Journal for Social Research.

The National Bureau for Educational and Social Research was established as long ago as 1929 under the then Department of Union Education, now the Department of Higher Education. The Bureau was closed during the war years but was reopened in 1946.

By way of summary the functions of the Bureau are to undertake research in the spheres of education and social sciences on a national basis; to standardize and make available educational aids, such as phychological and scholastic tests; to compile and publish statistical data concerning education from all the education departments and universities; to act as central information office regarding education and research in South Africa and overseas; to act as the secretariate of the National Council for Social Research; to evaluate South African and overseas certificates and diplomas and to inform employers in this connection; to make recommendations regarding the purchase of books and journals by the National Study Library; and to advise and guide researchers in the spheres of education and social sciences.

At present the Bureau consists of the Divisions of Educational Research, Testing Services; Social Research; Manpower Research; Information; Evaluation of Certificates and Diplomas, and Publications; Statistical Analysis and Processing; and Administration.

The Divisions of Testing Services, Sociological Research and Manpower Research cover all population groups.

The third body, the Interdepartmental Advisory Committee for Educational and Social Research, was established in 1953 on public servants’ level and consists at present of representatives of the Bureau, the Department of Higher Education, all the Provincial Departments of Education, and the Department of Education of South West Africa, the Departments of Labour, Health, Bantu Education, Coloured Affairs, Indian Affairs, Social Welfare and Pensions, Bantu Administration and Development, the South African Railways, the Natural Resources Development Council and the Public Service Commission. The function of the Committee is to co-ordinate social research for Government Departments and to ensure the elimination of any overlapping.

The fourth body, the Advisory Committee for Manpower Research and Planning, was established in terms of a Cabinet resolution and this committee is dependent on the work of the Manpower Centre of the Bureau. The functions of the Advisory Committee are to co-ordinate the activities of all Government and semi-Government bodies in the spheres of manpower research, planning and training; to determine the need for manpower research and to refer their findings to specific bodies for implementation; to make recommendations, where necessary, in regard to a redistribution of the functions of Government and semi-Government bodies which are active in the spheres of manpower research, planning and training; to advise the National Bureau of Educational and Social Research which is the official body for social research on a national basis, as well as the other bodies conducting research for the Committee in regard to their activities in the spheres of manpower research and training; to obtain as far as possible, where deemed practical, the co-operation of private persons and bodies in regard to manpower research, planning and training; and to advise the Government in regard to the most effective utilization of the country’s manpower.

The Committee reports on its activities to the Cabinet through the Minister of National Education. The Committee meets every fourth Thursday of March and September, and more often if necessary.

The Chairman, the Scientific Adviser to the Prime Minister and the representative of the Office of the Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister, of the Public Service Commission, of the Department of Labour and of Bantu Administration and Development, of the Bureau of Statistics and of the National Advisory Education Council, act as an executive committee with the right to co-opt. The actions of the executive committee are subject to the approval of the Advisory Committee for Manpower Research and Planning.

Conclusive proof has been furnished in actual practice over a period of many years that research can only be conducted with difficulty as part of a Government Department, except where it is an integral part of its activities as in the case of Agricultural Technical Services. A research organization inevitably requires the highest degree of elasticity as opposed to Public Service directives in the form of laws and regulations. Consequently it is felt that the Bureau of Social and Educational Research as well as the National Council for Social Research should be modelled on the same lines as the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (C.S.I.R.) and should function under a separate Act outside the Public Service, but under the Ministry of National Education.

Consequently provision is being made in clause 2 for the establishment of a Human Sciences Research Council and for its powers. The most comprehensive definition, and one which covers the widest field, is the definition of “geesteswetenskappe” in “Die Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal”, in which the traces of Van Dalen and other standard works are clearly recognizable. Clause 1 defines that word, together with other words where necessary, and the English translation of the first-mentioned word is “human sciences”.

Clause 3 lays down the functions of the Council and eliminates the overlapping of research for Government bodies. In pursuance of representations made to me, however, I have decided to remove the ban on research in subsection (3), and I shall move a suitable amendment during the Committee Stage of the Bill. Certain departments undertake smaller research projects and it would be wrong to provide that the Minister’s approval must be obtained for every small project. The Council advises me and may conduct research for an individual or the authorities—on payment of a consideration.

Hon. members will find the constitution of the Council in clause 4, in terms of which it may also establish subsidiary committees. Clause 5 deals with the functions, powers and remuneration of the president, and clause 6 provides for officers and other employees of the Council, while clause 7 deals with their pension benefits and clause 8 contains the usual provisions for transfer.

The provisions concerning inventions in clause 9 and the right to inventions in clause 10, are self-evident. Clause 11 makes provision for the required secrecy concerning new, unknown facts as well as for a fine not exceeding R500.

Clause 13 contains the usual provisions in regard to book-keeping, auditing and the annual reports, and clause 14 grants authority for the making of regulations.

Clause 15 permits South West Africa to appropriate moneys in aid of the Council and clause 16 makes the proposed Act applicable to that territory.

Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing now this Bureau being floated off not as an independent institution but an institution outside the Department. It is becoming a sister council to the C.S.I.R. The C.S.I.R. is concerned with scientific research; this is concerned with what we call the human sciences. There is much to be said for it, of course; there can be no objection to it, because to some extent it is a matter of organization. But there are one or two points I should like to make. I am concerned about the relations between this Council and our universities. For many years I have said that the universities have not received the support in conducting research that they should have had. The reply to that has been that there is research by other bodies in other directions. I think our funds should be directed chiefly to our universities and, if I may say so, I think in this Bill the universities are relegated to, not an inferior position, but to a position which does not give them the status they ought to have in the establishment of this new body. I refer, for example, to clause 3, line 39, which provides that the new Council will make grants to the universities. I think that is not sufficient. I think the universities as independent and autonomous bodies ought to be recognized as such in this Bill. The other point I should like to make is this. In clause 4 there is reference to the constitution of the Council. The members of the Council will be nominated by the Minister. I think it would be an excellent thing if the universities were represented on this council directly, perhaps, or that the Minister should consult the Committee of Principals, who would assist him in making nominations. I feel that in our higher education it is most important that we should give the chief place to our universities in South Africa, but of course we can discuss these matters in Committee.

There is one clause I should like the hon. the Minister to read again, clause 8 (1). I wonder whether reading this aloud would not be a cure for insomnia. I do not know whether the Minister has tried reading it aloud. He should read the English version aloud. It focuses attention on what I have raised with the hon. the Minister under his Vote, namely the question of translation. It is becoming a very difficult matter. I feel that this clause should be stated much more simply so that the people concerned, the Government servants who are transferred to this new body, would have their status and their conditions of transfer stated simply in a manner which everyone could follow. I think that is important. It is a very complicated statement, and I should like the hon. the Minister to look at it before we come to the Committee Stage. Naturally, of course, we shall support the principle of the Bill.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Kensington. As regards his final point, in connection with clause 8 (1), I shall go into the matter very thoroughly to see whether an improvement cannot be made. I do not think the hon. member need be so concerned about the relationship which will arise between the Bureau and the universities. It will be exactly the same relationship as that which has existed since 1945 between the C.S.I.R. and the universities in the sphere of natural sciences. The universities have their independent funds for research. They also receive additional funds from the Government for research under the Holloway formula.

Not under the Holloway formula. There is no separate section but apparently that will be proposed next time.

Yes, it will come. It is in existence already. There is a component for research at the universities and they receive a subsidy on that for post-graduate work and training. During the past two years the Government granted a special amount of R100,000 for post-graduate students. I do not think the hon. member need be concerned about that. The relationship has been created over the past 20 years or more, and we have followed exactly the same pattern as that of the C.S.I.R. Act to remove this body from the Public Service and to make it an independent body as well.

I know hon. members opposite are allergic to the Minister having to appoint people to councils. The suggestion made by the hon. member that the principals of universities should make the nominations, flows from that allergy. I just want to say that this body will inevitably be a very highly specialized one and that provision is also being made for a large number of committees. If the hon. member wants to take the trouble to examine the constitution of this Council, he will find that there is wide representation throughout South Africa. All these bodies will be duly consulted, because the Minister is not supposed to know all the best people who will be suitable to perform these functions. I do thank the hon. member, however, for his assurance of support.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Section 15 of the Universities Act, 1955, provides for the continued existence of the Joint Matriculation Board established by the University of South Africa Act, 1916, as well as for its present constitution. At present the Matriculation Board consists of representatives of each university, representatives of the Committee of University Principals, representatives of the Department of Higher Education, the Department of Bantu Education and the Department of Coloured Affairs, as well as the Education Department of each Province, and of the Territory of South West Africa, and of representatives of certain schools in the Republic and in the Territory.

On 1st April, 1966, the Department of Indian Affairs took over the education of Indian children from the Province of Natal and last year also from the Transvaal. As a result of that take-over the Committee of University Principals made a request for that Department to be given representation in the Matriculation Board. Consequently the relevant section of the Act is being amended by clause 1 of the amending Bill so as to include the Department of Indian Affairs. At the same time “Department of Higher Education”, as the responsible Department is now called, is being substituted for the outdated designation “Department of Education, Arts and Science”.

Similarly we are availing ourselves of this opportunity to make improvements to sections 22, 25 and 27 which do not affect the principles of the principal Act.

Clause 2 amends the obsolete wording in subsection (2) of section 22 to read that the Minister may “in consultation” instead of “after consultation” with the Minister of Finance waive any preference; in the Afrikaans version the expression “deur die verband gesekureer” is being substituted for the expression “deur die verband verseker”. This provision will then conform to a similar provision for loans in section 21 of the Advanced Technical Education Act, 1967. The Treasury and the Law Advisers, respectively, insisted on the wording of that section at that time, and I readily accepted it.

Clause 3 brings the wording of section 25 into conformity with that of an identically worded section 25 in the last-mentioned Act, i.e. the Advanced Technical Education Act, 1967, which provides for subsidies to technical colleges. For quite some time now the Treasury has been pointing out that the financial assistance given by Parliament to universities and colleges for advanced technical training, really is in the nature of “subsidies” and not “grants-in-aid”, because the latter amounts to an out and out donation, which is voted as a column 2 item in the Estimates, and which must therefore be avoided in connection with universities and colleges. This is a financial requirement about which I, as a layman, cannot quarrel. The remaining adjustments are of a grammatic nature, but I should like to point out that initially financial assistance to universities was granted “subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Minister by regulation”, but as a result of an amendment such assistance has been granted since 1959, “subject to such conditions as may in respect of each university, be determined by the Minister”. This amendment introduced by section 7 (1) of Act No. 82 of 1959 was not as complete as it could have been.

Finally, clause 4 consequently supplies a deficiency in section 27 of the principal Act in addition to substituting “subsidies” for “grants-in-aid” in subsection (2). When the expression “in respect of each university determined by the Minister” was substituted in 1959 for the expression “be prescribed by the Minister by regulation” in section 25, a consequential amendment should have been made to section 27 in regard to conditions. Hon. members will recall that section 27 (1) of the Advanced Technical Education Act, 1967. makes provision, although in a slightly simplified form, for action on the failure of any council to comply with any conditions subject to which a subsidy has been granted.

While a so-called grant-in-aid was subject in terms of section 25 to “such conditions as may be prescribed by the Minister” it was in order to provide in section 27 “if any council fails to comply with any provision of this Act”, because “this Act”, included in terms of section 1 “any regulation made in terms of section 28”. Now that a subsidy is subject to “the conditions determined by the Minister” it has become necessary to make proper provision for action on the failure of any council to comply with any such conditions. In this way the provisions of the principal Act which were applicable prior to 1959 are merely being restored and this amending Bill therefore contains no change in principle at all.

I just want to draw the attention of hon. members to a document which has been forwarded to all universities. It does not appear in the Government Gazette because it only applies to the universities concerned. The heading reads (translation)—

This gives an exposition of the entire matter and I just want to read the preamble (translation)—

The new quinquennial period will commence on 1st January, 1969. I do not want to read out all the conditions. The conditions for grants-in-aid appear on page 6 (translation)—

I am mentioning this only because a great deal of confusion has been created by the Press to the effect that the amendment introduced by this legislation allegedly had an ulterior motive and that the Minister allegedly intended imposing all kinds of conditions on the universities. This only concerns the conditions on which these grants will become payable and the intention is to follow exactly the same pattern as set out in this document.

When we come to discuss a Bill to amend the Universities Act there are obviously two questions we ask. Under section 2 of the original Act there is established a University Advisory Committee, and in section 2 of this original 1955 Act it is laid down that the Minister may consult that committee or that the committee may offer suggestions and advice to the Minister. Under section 6 of the Act provision is made for a Committee of Principals, and under section 7 this Committee has the power to make suggestions to the Minister and the Minister, of course, may consult the committee. The obvious question to ask is this: Has the Minister consulted the advisory committee; has he consulted the Committee of Principals or did they offer him any advice or suggestions? That is the obvious question one asks when one deals with proposed amendments to the Universities Act.

I think the hon. the Minister has given a satisfactory explanation. I am very sorry he did not issue a statement to the Press because, as he says, there has been a great deal of criticism and, so the Minister says, a great deal of misunderstanding. Well, possibly there is. I have read the Bill very carefully and, being familiar with the 1955 Act and the amending Act of 1959—section 7 of Act No. 82 of 1959 is referred to in this measure—I am familiar with the matter. To me there does not seem to be any difficulty. The first clause need not concern one at all because it is a routine matter, namely an amendment of the Matriculation Board regulations. That does not concern us. With reference to clause 2 it might even be said that the Minister is restricting his own powers, because originally the enactment read that the Minister, after consultation, can decide, but now he will decide in consultation. In other words, his powers are diminished rather than increased. Therefore I do not see any difficulty about the second clause. In the third clause we have this confusion between grants-in-aid and subsidies. I ask, Sir, what’s in a name? That which is called a subsidy might as well be called a grant-in-aid. In my view there is confusion about the names. I think the term subsidy has been the correct one right from the beginning. But we refer to grants-in-aid because every year in the Estimates the Minister refers to grants-in-aid to universities. That is the term he has used, and the term is that of the Act, but in fact these grants have been subsidies. Grants-in-aid are given as a gift, whilst subsidies are made, I presume, for a specific purpose. However, I do not see any difficulty as far as the change in terms is concerned—the word “grants-in-aid” being merely changed to subsidies. Mr. Speaker, I must confess I have been looking for difficulties and, having seen so much in the Press about the matter, I did my best in examining the Bill but up to clause 3 I have not succeeded in finding any difficulties. It is quite true that in the amending Act of 1959 —I have already referred to section 7 of that Act—we find the words “and subject to such conditions as may, in respect of each university, be determined by the Minister”.

Finally I come to clause 4, and if there has been misunderstanding and criticism then it has been in respect of this clause. What are the conditions which are taken into consideration? The Minister has read out to us what the conditions were in the past. Can he give us the assurance that these conditions which he has in mind in the Act, are financial conditions, ordinary conditions attached to a subsidy? One can understand what conditions are attached to a loan. If money is lent to a person there must be conditions attached to the loan, and these are financial. But in this instance, where we have grants-in-aid or subsidies, the nature of the conditions is, I think, very important. There has been a good deal of criticism concerning the nature of the conditions. I have listened to the assurances of the Minister. I presume he has had conversations with the representatives of the universities. If he has indeed had such conversations and he can assure us that they are satisfied and feel there is no sinister motive in the Bill, then I will be quite satisfied and we on this side will support this Bill. I should like the Minister to give us that assurance in his reply to the second-reading debate.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Kensington I have also been studying this Bill very closely and, like the hon. member for Kensington, I also feel there is nothing objectionable at all in clauses 1, 2 and 3 of this Bill. But, unlike the hon. member for Kensington, I am afraid I cannot as readily accept the assurances of the hon. the Minister in respect of clause 4. It may well be that the Minister has consulted the principals of the universities, and I hope he will tell us when he replies that he has consulted the committee of principals of universities. In his reply, too, I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us, whatever opinion he received from that body, whether it was unanimous and whether all the principals were satisfied that this Bill in fact contained nothing except a simple change in wording without any alteration in principle, as the Minister originally told us when he introduced the second reading.

I am afraid I am a little sceptical of ministerial assurances, and I say this without being personal to this hon. Minister. I have had enough experience over the years in this House to know that assurances given are not always carried out. There is a tendency for assurances, when they no longer suit the Government, to become the dead hand of the past. The only thing that interests me is not ministerial assurances given over the floor of this House, but the actual wording contained in Bills accepted in this House. If the wording is such as to give far-raohing powers to Ministers, and additional powers in the case of amending Bills, then I, for one, am not prepared simply to accept assurances.

I looked at this clause 4 very carefully indeed, and it seems to me that it does go further than the existing section 27 of the Act, as it originally appeared in the 1955 Bill, as amended by the 1959 Bill. I admit this clause is ambiguous. It is not clear at all that the Act as it reads at present, without this amending Bill, gives the Minister the power to withhold or withdraw a subsidy or a grant-in-aid, if a university fails to comply with a condition attached to such subsidy. I maintain there is a definite distinction between the words “provision of the Act” and a “condition which is imposed in terms of a provision of the Act”. Conditions imposed by the Minister do not automatically become part of the Act itself, that is, part of the provisions of the Act, and I do not believe the Minister had a clear power to impose any form of sanctions or any form of penalty against university councils if they did not comply with a condition which he laid down, whereas he did have the power to impose sanctions if the university council did not comply with a provision of the Act. What I am trying to do is draw a clear distinction between the words “provision of the Act” and the words “condition as laid down by the Minister”. I am fortified in this opinion by the preamble of this very Bill that we are discussing to-day, because it makes it quite clear that there is an additional power which is to be provided. The last few lines of the preamble reads as follows—

What is the necessity for those words in the preamble if the hon. the Minister is not extending the power he already has in terms of the 1955 Act, as amended, to apply sanctions to withdraw or withhold a subsidy if a university does not comply with a provision of the Act? I believe, therefore, that this particular section does go further and extends the powers of the Minister. I am also fortified in my opinion by the fact that when the Minister introduced (and subsequently withdrew) the University Amendment Bill in 1966, that Bill contained a clause which also made it quite clear that the Minister at that time was relying on the power to bring into operation certain provisions of the Act. That Bill specifically stated …

Order! That is not under discussion now.

No, Sir, but I am just using that as a comparison to fortify my opinion that even the draftsman of that Bill did not think it was sufficient to put in the world “condition” but that the word “provision” should be included. Now it is no longer going to be necessary for the Minister to rely on a provision, because he can simply rely on any condition which he likes to impose on a university when he grants a subsidy to that university. I am simply trying to argue, Sir, that there is a considerable difference between a provision of an Act and a condition laid down by the hon. the Minister in terms of a provision of an Act. That is why I believe that this clause goes further and I believe that the assurances that are being given today are not sufficient because of the unfortunate history attached to assurances, in particular as far as university education is concerned. Long ago we were told by the then Minister of Education that it was not the Government’s intention to impose any form of apartheid on the universities. We were given that assurance in this House as long back as 1951. We were told, for instance, that the Government was not going ahead with enforcing segregation in the universities. The then Minister disappeared from this House and later of course the assurances were forgotten and in terms of Bills introduced in this House segregation was imposed on the universities. The open universities, despite a long fight for academic freedom, were then no longer able to admit non-white students without special ministerial permission.

Moreover, this hon. the Minister has had a constant dispute, a running fight one might say, with certain of the English-language universities about mixed societes on the campus. Indeed the two Bills which he introduced in 1966, which he subsequently withdrew, were aimed at the Minister getting his way as far as the prohibition of mixed societies on university campuses was concerned, and also to enforce the universities to recognize segregated societies. I do not wish to go into the history of this because it is not relevant in detail. We only know that this matter is not yet resolved completely; we know the Minister came out with some pretty thunderous phrases against U.C.T., especially against the S.R.C. there, and talked about “curbing the unbridled liberalism” of the Cape Town University’s S.R.C.

Order! Is the hon. member not going too far ?

I will not go any further as far as that matter is concerned. I want to make quite clear to this House, and to the hon. the Minister in particular, why it is that I regret I am unable to accept his assurances that clause 4 of this Bill with the additional words now included makes no difference whatever to the situation as it existed before this Bill was introduced in this House. Therefore I regret to have to tell the Minister that I am unable to accept those assurances and I shall vote against the principle of this Bill at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, of course I do not take it amiss of the hon. member for Houghton—“feminine suspicion” and “feminine intuition” are difficult concepts for us to define. Women always see matters differently, not so? Being no lawyer and anticipating the occurrence of something such as has in fact come to the fore now, I obtained in advance a legal opinion on the scope of my powers. I should like to read it to the hon. member. It reads as follows (translation)—

I am now addressing the lawyers who must assist me. The opinion reads further—

This is the legal principle. If the hon. member sees anything in this Act enabling me to circumvent this and to add various other conditions, I should like to have it pointed out to me. The hon. member for Houghton failed to point out anything to me.

The hon. member for Kensington asked me whether I had consulted the University Advisory Committee and the Committee of University Principals. I have consulted both. I remember that the university principals sent me their reply on 11th December last year. From the nature of the case I do not know when there is a difference of opinion. For example, I do not know how many were in favour. What the hon. member for Houghton really asked was how many of them were against it. I am very glad to be able to say that, as far as I could ascertain, only a few of the university principals had misgivings. Among others, the principal of the University of Natal, who also had misgivings came to see me personally. He told me that his misgivings had all been cleared up. The Director of Higher Education to-day handed me this letter, signed by Sir Richard Luyt, of the University of Cape Town. It is addressed to the Director and dated 19th February. It reads as follows:

Dear Mr. Erasmus,

Signed: Richard Luyt.

This, Sir, I think is ample proof to the hon. member for Kensington that the Committee of Principals, people who really took pains not to look for anything sinister behind this amending Bill … [Interjections.] I am not going to insult Parliament and the House of Assembly by asking them to make laws on the basis of assurances from me, and to accept my word that this is the case and that is the case. The hon. member must not make a fuss now and say that she does not believe in this kind of thing. If I say that I am giving an assurance, then it is based on facts. The facts on which I base it, are that the Minister does not have the power to go beyond what he has done here. The main problem is that in the organization and administration we have to lay down conditions when a subsidy is paid. If lists are not submitted in good time, the subsidy is held back until this is done. We are not going to saddle people with any other matters. The hon. member has just referred to this, Sir. Please allow me to mention this point. Legislation was introduced as far back as 1966. If it becomes necessary to re-introduce that legislation in future, it will be done. Those universities that transgressed by allowing quite unbridled and unmannerly things to happen on their campuses, had a fright. They came to me. They made promises. They made investigations and took a turn for the better. But if such things were to happen again, legislation will be introduced. I have not been frightened. Hon. members must not think that I have been frightened so much by the criticism as to want to get in by a back door to do something else. That is below my dignity.

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

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment standing in my name on page 87 of the Order Paper, which reads as follows:

The effect of the amendment is to lay down that the annual re-registration fee shall not be more than R5. In the amending Bill, as it stands, the amount stipulated is not more than R30. In the Second Reading I referred the hon. the Minister to another arrangement which applied to veterinary medicines. I pointed out there that a nominal fee and a nominal renewal fee were charged in connection with the registration of veterinary medicines and preparations used against pests. I pointed out that the regulations laid down an initial fee of R4 and a renewal fee of 50 cents, and that this applied for a number of years. I have established since then that new figures have been laid down, to which I referred in general. Now the registration fee is R10 per remedy, but it is for four years. The renewal fee is also R10 per remedy, and it is also for a period of four years. I understand that that fee would stand and would only require adjustment should the manufacturer of the particular remedy seek to amend the formula in any way. I do not believe that it is a good thing to offer criticism without trying to put some alternative measure to the hon. the Minister. I want to suggest to him that if he is sympathetic to the small man—and I believe he is—he should give consideration to some form of sliding fee. This is entrenched in our procedure. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to the Licences Act where, in the case of a general dealer’s licence, a sliding fee is provided. You will find that it is based on the quantity of goods held in stock. When a general dealer applies for a licence, he himself has to calculate on the application form, in terms of the stock he has, the amount which he will pay. This amount varies according to the stock he has. Where the average value of the stock is R4,000, the general dealer’s licence is R10. Where the stock exceeds R60,000, the general dealer’s licence stand at a maximum of R200.

I believe that this principle could be adapted to this particular Bill in so far as volume of sales is concerned. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that in the draft regulations which appeared in March of this year it was actually required that an applicant for registration should indicate the volume of the sales which had occurred during the previous year, as well as the value of those sales. This has been removed from the regulations which were gazetted in December, but apparently in the initial stages the Drugs Control Council in its wisdom decided that this information would serve some purpose as far as it was concerned. I believe that this would be a fair way of protecting the small man who may one day become a big man and who will then be called upon to pay the higher fee. But I want to make it quite clear that I am not in any way suggesting that there should be any waiving of registration. I believe that that has been accepted in the Act and I feel that that should stand. Any medicine which is sold other than that sold in terms of section 14 of the Act should, I believe, be registered by the Council. But I want to quote to the hon. the Minister a comment which I received from a chemist and druggist who holds a high position in the profession and whose name is well known throughout the Republic. This is what he said—

He was referring to clause 1—

I am therefore not alone in believing that this particular system may mean the end of the small man. I say in all seriousness that from the small man the large manufacturers in South Africa have grown. These are organizations which to-day mean big money in taxes to the State and organizations which offer employment to our own people. Many of these remedies are household words to-day. It is not my intention to go into detail, because I believe that that would be invidious. I should, however, like to refer the hon. the Minister to such towns as Adelaide, Uitenhage, Ladybrand and Middelburg, all of which owe a certain amount of their prosperity to the fact that in the old days a small firm started in a small way and prospered and has gone from strength to strength. I believe that these firms can to-day well afford the maximum registration fee and could well afford a re-registration fee of R18. But I wonder when they started business years ago whether such fees would not have influenced them, and whether they would not have had second thoughts about putting certain of their remedies on the market. I do not believe that this avenue should be closed to newcomers who also wish to start in a small way and who have ambition to go on and make a success of their undertakings. I want to quote an example which has been brought to my notice. It is an authentic example which I can fully substantiate. It concerns an asthma remedy which has been on the market for 20 years. It is a remedy the formula of which was culled from an accepted medical textbook and was apparently formulated by a medical man. The ingredients are all ingredients which appear in the British Pharmacopoeia or the British Pharmacopoeia Codex. As far as I know, in the whole period in which this remedy has been on the market, no ill-effects have been reported. In those days the price of this remedy was 3s. 6d., and to-day it still costs only 35 cents. There has been no increase in price. The maker of this particular remedy decided that he would try an advertising promotion when he first produced the remedy. He undertook nominal expenditure and found that it did not produce the sales for which he had hoped. He then appointed a distributor, so that together with the advertising he could at least offer distribution on a country-wide basis. His distributor then said to him that if he wanted this medicine sold on a national basis and to become a big seller, he must be prepared to spend £1,000 on advertising for two or three years and his distributor would make it a big seller. He said that the product would become a household word. The manufacturer thought this over. Firstly, he did not have the £1,000. Secondly, he knew that if he adopted this measure, he would immediately have to recoup himself in some way and increase the price, possibly to double what it was at the time. He therefore decided against it and to leave the matter as it was. The result is that to-day he still finds that he has a demand from wholesale avenues of distribution for this medicine to the extent of about 12 dozen bottles a year. He also has a small outlet through his own pharmacy. There has been no advertising for 20 years, and yet this man finds that his remedy is still in demand. Obviously, to these people who suffer from the distressing complaint of asthma, this remedy provides relief which costs them very little in relation to the general asthma remedies, and they continue to seek this particular remedy.

I can say in all seriousness that the gross profit per annum of this particular remedy does not amount to R60 per year. It would not be in the interests of the manufacturer to register and pay this R60 registration fee, because he knows that he would not be able to recoup himself from the sales. I believe that when the Drugs Control Council announces in terms of its regulations that drugs falling in pharmacological classification No. 10 in terms of the regulations, that is drugs acting on the respiratory system, have to be registered, this remedy will simply have to disappear from the market. What happens to the people who have been gaining relief from this medicine? Must they now use something which is far more expensive? Do they have to try a variety of remedies to find something which will give them the same relief as this medicine has done? Or is the Minister going to have second thoughts on this matter and agree that the small man with his remedies, not advertised but sold by virtue of the merit and the effect which they have, should have an opportunity to continue in a limited sphere of activity? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before we put the amendment, I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister is going to reply to the points raised by the hon. member for Berea. If he does not intend replying at the moment, I think that the hon. member for Berea should continue with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I have only a few more remarks which I wish to address to the Minister. I thank the hon. Whip for his courtesy. I believe that this position exists in numerous pharmacies. I believe that those professional men who have manufactured their own cough mixtures, headache powders, indigestion mixtures, diarrhoea mixtures, corn paints, healing ointments and simple remedies for which there has been a demand and which have achieved success in their medication will no longer be able to perform this service to the poorer class in the community.

Do you not think that this is a good thing?

I am not pleading that they should not be registered. If these remedies do not comply with the requirements of the Drugs Control Council, I believe that they should not be registered but disappear from the market. But if the chemist is able to satisfy the Drugs Council, then I see no reason whatsoever why they should disappear from the market purely for the reasons I have outlined. I believe that in the long run the public will suffer. The alternatives that would be available to them, would cost more.

Why cannot these be registered too?

I have tried to point out that to register under the existing Act, will now cost the applicant, the manufacturer, R60 a year, whereas this amending Bill lays down that the re-registration fee, payable annually, will be not less than R30 a year.

But these patent medicines are the most lucrative thing in the world. The manufacturers make fortunes out of it.

In reply to the hon. the Minister of Transport, I am not talking about those manufacturers. Those are the big men, who started in a small way in Uitenhage, Adelaide, etc.

They charged me R25 for a bottle of zyloprim, which I think is a scandal. [Interjections.]

Bearing in mind that there will be many cases of the nature I have outlined to the hon. the Minister, I ask him sincerely to give some thought to the possibility of fixing a registration charge on a sliding scale, which could be based on quantity or on value sold. I am not pleading for any relaxation as far as registration of these preparations are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea has put up a plea for the small man, which I think is justified. There are companies, such as those referred to by the hon. the Minister of Transport, that are well able to pay their registration fees. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me how he reached the figure of R30 for re-registration. I understand from the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech that it will cost a fair sum of money to run his council which will go into testing the merits and purity of the various drugs that are coming on to the market. That I can understand. But taking re-registration alone, if there are 25,000 different preparations on the market and the hon. the Minister is going to charge R30 as a re-registration fee per year for each, he is going to have coming into his coffers R¾ million every year. If the Minister can tell me that he can use up R¾ million a year on the examination of these drugs, then he must have a very big staff indeed to do that work. I know and he knows that his staff only consists of a handful of people. It will therefore take them a terrific long time to examine all these drugs, excluding the new drugs that may be coming on to the market. He informed the House that he would tackle the job from the top, leaving out a lot of the drugs that are in everyday use. These would be considered in the end. I still say that R30 a year is excessive when the hon. the Minister cannot spend that amount of money. The hon. the Minister will have a fund building up which will never be used. Let the Minister by all means have a fee for re-registration. That must be done. But let us, however, see the matter in the correct perspective, and not just ask money for the sake of asking money. I do not think that the amount will not be paid by certain firms. Some of the big firms will find it very easy to pay a re-registration fee of R30. The small man, however, will find it awfully difficult. Another point about which I am not happy, is how this fee is going to be passed on to the public, because that is what is going to happen. The registration fee and the re-registration fee will eventually come out of the public’s pocket. If it were possible to divide the extra fees by the number of preparations, tablets or bottles of medicine that are going to be sold over the counter, the result will probably only be negligible. But the firms producing the drugs will not be getting back only R¾ million. It will probably be doubled or even trebled. R¾ million should at the very most represent a per cent per preparation. That should be the position if you consider the number of bottles that are sold over the counter daily and you have to get it back from the public. But the manufacturer is not going to enhance the price by ½ cent. He is going to put on 5 cents or 2 cents, or perhaps he may put on 3 cents. So the amount of money which is going to be taken out of the patient’s pocket is not going to be R¾ million. It is probably going to be three times that amount. I should therefore say that the hon. the Minister should make the re-registration fee such so that it will not have to be passed on to the patient. I will be quite happy then. I therefore wish to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea. I think that if the hon. the Minister gives it due consideration he will accept what we say. It is a practical thing. We want the re-registration fee but we want to do it in such a way that the small man, the small producer, will be protected and that the purchaser of the medicine, whatever it may be, will not be penalized in any way. For that reason I think that a re-registration fee of R5 will probably be quite sufficient. If the suggestion by the hon. member for Berea in regard to a sliding scale is going to be considered, the top notches could perhaps be increased while the bottom rungs of that sliding scale could perhaps be decreased.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure hon. members opposite that this provision is not aimed at making money. That is not the object at all. I also want to assure hon. members that I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view as expressed by them, namely to look after the interests of the small man. After all, we do know that the major portion of drugs manufactured are imported from overseas. Here those drugs are simply packaged or made up into pills, syrups or capsules. You can therefore understand that there are sound reasons for us wanting to protect the small man in South Africa. Now we are faced with certain problems. The first problem is, how is one going to protect him? Let me tell you once again that you must not think that the amount of R30 is the amount which must be charged for re-registration. The amount of R30 is the maximum laid down by the council. It is not applicable for one year, but may remain in force for the next 10, 15 or 20 years. The amount has been fixed at R30 because, as we know, the value of money continually depreciates. And we cannot and will not insult the council by making a change and asking for an increase each year. In other words, it is for the convenience of the council that we have chosen to fix a maximum of R30, which will not be applicable now, but which may well be necessary in the course of years. Possibly it will be R5, or not more than R5. That is the first consideration. The hon. member for Berea in point of fact abandoned the idea of decreasing the amount to R5 when he suggested that the fee be charged according to a sliding scale. This had to be a sliding scale with a lower fee for the small man than for the big man. There is a great deal to be said for that. As I explained to you in the Second Reading Debate, the council must act as a watchdog in respect of each drug appearing on the market. One never knows when it may be found that a drug which seems harmless when taken once or twice, may have serious results and effects after a few years. Such a drug will then have to be modified or withdrawn immediately. The expenditure involved in research and in playing watchdog is so heavy that R30 may eventually prove to be justified in the case of many of the pharmaceutical preparations. There are research which must be conducted and staff who must be appointed specially for dealing with those drugs. I should also just like to remind the hon. member for Rosettenville that though the present staff may be small, it will not remain so. It is extremely difficult to obtain qualified staff. Their numbers are limited in South Africa. But in due course, as the activities of the council become more extensive, it is most probable, virtually inevitable, that the staff and the expenditure will increase. Although I am very sympathetic towards the proposal, we are still faced with the problem that if we do have a sliding scale, how is that sliding scale to operate? If the hon. member can present us with a sliding scale, he can rest assured that it will receive our most serious attention. The maximum of R30 as laid down in the Bill, however, must be retained. If the hon. member can submit to us a sliding scale which works reasonably well, we shall give his proposal the closest attention in considering the regulations to be issued. But now the question is how we are to do so. What form will such a sliding scale take?

I think the operation of the sliding scale suggested by the hon. member will be difficult. The hon. member said that it should be done according to turnover. The fee should be lower for a person selling less, while the fee should be higher for a person selling more. But now one must not overlook the other object. As you know, the re-registration fees serve a dual purpose. The first relates to expenditure, but at the same time one must be able to tell people that useless articles which are no longer being sold and which cannot be sold any longer, should rather be removed from the register, as the Drugs Control Council would otherwise still have to appoint officials each year for the supervision of those drugs. There is, as I have said, this dual purpose. If we were to apply the sliding scale suggested by the hon. member, and were to charge no registration fees for those articles which have no market, then we would frustrate that object, namely to have the useless articles removed from the market and from the registers. That is the difficulty. I therefore want to assure the hon. member that if he were to come forward with a practical suggestion which would not frustrate these two objects, we shall give it our most serious attention.

The hon. member for Rosettenville pointed out that according to a calculation based on the number of drugs at present on the market —20,000 with an increase of 200 or more per month—a very large amount would be paid into the account of the Drugs Control Council. But this is only an estimate. Let me tell you, Sir, what the result of this control will be. Many of those articles are articles which should never have been allowed on the market. Many of those articles have such after effects—they have probably been badly tested or the after effects have not yet been determined—that one may be sure that the Drugs Control Council will eliminate many of them in order that they dared not be put on the market. In other words, we do not as yet know exactly what the effects will be. I can give the hon. member the assurance that if in fact it becomes evident that this is the case, as he said, namely that a great deal of money was to be obtained here which could not be justified, because the expenditure of that council was much lower and the cost of supervision was not as great, then we shall naturally give serious consideration to decreasing those fees—both the registration and the re-registration fees. I think I have now replied to the questions which were raised.

I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the offer that he has made, namely that if a system can be evolved he will give it careful consideration. That is how I understand the position. I should also like to put this point of view to the Minister, namely that most of the remedies to which I have referred are simple remedies, comprised of drugs which fall within the definition of the British Pharmacopoeia or British Pharmacopeia Codex standards. The standard and purity have therefore already been satisfied by the strict requirements laid down by these two books of reference and by the other standard books of reference and the regulations to which the hon. the Minister has referred. There is therefore no real necessity for the Drugs Control Council to be involved in testing a combination of these ingredients. I believe that once the formula has been approved and the product examined and passed by the Drugs Control Council, it would not be necessary for frequent tests to be made. I just want to make a brief reference to the question of tests. I realize that these tests could be very expensive, but I believe that in cases which would fall within the examples which I have given it would not be necessary to test frequently because of the standards laid down. And I believe that they would not be very expensive. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to a question which I addressed to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services on the 19th May, 1967. The question I put to the hon. the Minister was this: Whether his Department has submitted samples of veterinary preparations for testing by the South African Bureau of Standards; if so; (a) what types of preparations; (b) how many have been submitted; (c) how many were found (i) to comply and (ii) not to comply with the labelled amounts of active ingredients; and (d) what was the cost of having these samples tested? The hon. the Minister’s reply to the first portion of my question was in the affirmative, i.e. that preparations had been sent to the Department. To item (a) his reply was: Stock remedies submitted for registration in terms of Act No. 36 of 1947, mostly of the types intended for internal use and largely containing antibiotics and sulphur drugs as effective ingredients. In reply to item (b) the hon. the Minister stated: 52 samples, of which the analysis of 25 have been completed. They further found that 23 complied with the labelled amounts of active ingredients while only two did not comply. All this added up to a very small expenditure as indicated by the answer to item (d) of my question. It reads: An account for R200 has been received up to the present for the analysis of 14 samples. I feel that if the hon. the Minister is going to encourage empire building by the fact that the Drugs Control Council will now institute its own testing laboratories —and I know that the Act lays down that the Minister of Health may appoint the necessary skilled technicians to do this work—then that will be an expensive way. But if the Drugs Control Council can, as in the case of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, use the facilities which already exist, and which apparently are prepared to give an efficient service at a reasonable price, I do not believe that the expense will be great. I therefore believe that the question of the registration and re-registration fee could well be reconsidered. I think—and I am not speaking as a highly-trained pharmacologist—that the assays and tests required to test the claimed strength of antibiotics and sulpha drugs would be far more involved, complicated and expensive than the tests which would be required to test the ingredients of ordinary home remedies which I have mentioned.

I just want to point out to the hon. member that the remedies he has mentioned are in fact simple remedies and that the testing of those remedies in the laboratories was to determine what the components were, and whether they complied with the standards. But the function of the Drugs Control Council is much more important to-day. It is not only necessary to determine what the components are. The Drugs Control Council must determine the biological action, and there is a great difference in that, because all manner of means are necessary to do this. It is not merely a chemical determination of what the elements or components are. It is a biological determination of what the effects are on humans, marmots or monkeys.

It might take years.

Yes, that is so. In other words, it is a completely different investigation and the cost is very different too. I am only mentioning this to show that the amounts laid down here are not excessive. The intention is not to exploit people or to collect more money for the State. The intention is only, in the first place, to cover the costs and, in the second place, to keep unnecessary drugs off the market.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

I move— That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

During the second-reading debate, and also during the Committee Stage, the hon. the Minister made several references to the question of the testing of drugs, a very important facet of the work of the Drugs Control Council, and I want to put a suggestion to the hon. the Minister that in the carrying out of this work he should recommend that the Council pays attention to the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens of South Africa. The suggestion I have to make is that one of the first duties of this Council, when they consider the whole aspect of drug-testing for purity and efficacy, should be to consider the supply of drugs to State and provincial hospitals. We are aware of the system of tender which applies to the large State and provincial undertakings, where the Tender Board considers the various prices placed before it, and after due consideration it is not unusual for the most economical tender price to be accepted. I believe that in so far as the pharmaceutical manufacturing firms of repute are concerned, there is very little cause for anxiety. But in the case of a tender where possibly a pharmaceutical firm perhaps of not high repute, perhaps one which does not operate strictly in terms of the standards of purity required, might be fortunate enough to be awarded a tender, I sometimes wonder whether that particular product which is supplied on tender would stand up to close scrutiny and examination by chemical means. I suggest that under these circumstances it is desirable for this Council, in the first instance, to concentrate on making sure that those drugs, which are supplied in very large quantities to these organizations, are in fact up to the standards required. I am aware that various provincial organizations have their own methods for satisfying themselves that the standards are being maintained, but I believe that if this were co-ordinated by the Drugs Control Council a great deal of duplication of labour and unnecessary expense would be avoided, and I appeal to the Minister on those grounds to give consideration to this aspect.

Then there is one other aspect to which I wish to refer and that is in regard to a speech I made in this House a few years ago in which I referred to the extravagant claims which were being made in connection with certain patent medicines. At the time the Minister was aware that the Drugs Control Council would be called into being, and I believe that ample powers exist within the Act for control to be exercised over these people. But yesterday the Minister told us—and we on this side of the House agree—that the implementation of the Act and the inclusion of the various categories of drugs would take many years. It would take five to ten years before all the drugs with which we have to deal in South Africa are controlled under this particular Act. I believe that in the meantime the Drugs Control Council should give its attention to the manufacturers who produce patent medicines, advertise them in the popular Press and make extremely extravagant claims as to what these patent medicines can in fact do. Sir, I am referring primarily to preparations for reducing and preparations which are alleged to put on weight at a remarkable speed and preparations which are claimed to have a beneficial and desirable effect on the female anatomy in certain places.

Do they not work?

I do not know.

I hope the hon. member will not go too far along those lines.

Sir, I have no intention to take it any further. I believe that the Council should give an indication that they would be prepared to accept bona fide reports on any of these drugs which are on the market and that they should be prepared to use the powers which they have to investigate and restrict the marketing of such drugs, because I do not believe that it is in the public interest. It is mainly in the interests of the manufacturer and the advertising agents who promote these drugs. I know that the Minister has a file on these advertisements; I too have a file. I have discussed this matter with the Minister in the past and I think he agrees with me that there are preparations on the market which serve no useful purpose and which should not be allowed to be sold. I wish to give the House an example of the type of thing which a gullible public is asked to accept. This particular advertisement appeared in a Sunday paper in 1967 and it is headed “Marriage Happiness”, a very desirable state of affairs, as you will agree, Sir. It then goes on to say—

Sir, these tablets contain 50 mg. of caffeine, about as much as you would get in a cup of coffee. The dose of caffeine as laid down in the British pharmacopoeia is 250 to 500 mg. Each of these tablets which it is alleged will create the “ideal state of marriage happiness” contains 50 milligrams of caffeine. In my opinion we should not allow this sort of thing to continue, and I suggest in all seriousness to the Minister that this Drug Control Council should give immediate attention to this aspect of the matter. While it is not in a position perhaps to declare that all these groups should fall within the ambit of its activities in so far as registration is concerned, nevertheless where a complaint is lodged and a case can be made out then the Council should step in in the interests of the public of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down, may rest assured that we on this side of the House are at one with him as regards the suggestions he made here. I may just point out to him that in actual fact the Drugs Control Council only started functioning during the past year after all the preliminary steps that had to be taken. It has in fact already laid down standards for the majority of drugs. Besides, as I mentioned during the second-reading debate, the Drugs Control Council has already declared the British Pharmacopoeia and the British Pharmaceutical Code to be the works indicating the standards required in the Republic. Consequently, if any drug complies with the required standards, it is acceptable, even though there may be another product having higher standards. It may happen that the British Pharmacopoeia may also consider the standard of the other product to be unnecessarily high. However, the prescribed standards must be complied with, and when this is not the case the drug will not be accepted, except if the standard complied with by the product has been announced by the Drugs Control Council itself. If tenders of different standard are submitted to the Government, they will be quite acceptable, as long as the standard is equal to or higher than those announced. I think the hon. member will agree that this is fair.

The hon. member pointed out a second problem, and that is the extravagant claims made for many of these patent drugs. Extravagant claims are made regarding their usefulness and efficacy. In this regard we are faced with one of the most difficult problems. The problem does not concern the actual medicine or its standard. The hon. member referred to a case where a medicine only contained caffeine and, in fact, in such a quantity that it could not be harmful. The difficulty in this case is not the fact that caffeine is being sold, in other words, it is not the standard that is in question, and it is not a harmful drug. The objection here is that the remedy is praised sky-high in the advertisement and is virtually being sold under false pretences. This is the problem, namely what standard of advertising should be allowed. As the hon. member knows, the Drugs Control Council also has certain powers in regard to advertising. The hon. member will appreciate, however, that this problem is the lesser evil as compared to that of the danger of drugs. I think the Drugs Control Council will pay attention to any complaint submitted to it. I think it will have to pay attention in the first place to what is of the greatest importance, namely the danger of drugs. Subsequently it will be able to pay attention to advertising as well. I think this answers the points raised by the hon. member.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment as printed on page 87 of the Minutes:

This amendment is only necessary because the designation of the Minister of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure has been changed to “Minister of Agriculture”.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 2 put and negatived.

New Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

2. Section 2 of the principal Act is hereby amended—

1. (a) by the substitution for subsection (2) of the following subsection:
2. “(2) The State President shall not dispose of any particular State land in terms of subsection (1) if the disposal thereof is governed by a provincial ordinance”; and
3. (b) by the insertion after subsection (2) of the following subsections:
4. “(2A) When transfer of any land alienated in terms of subsection (1) is registered. the Minister may authorize the registrar of deeds in writing to endorse on the title deeds of the said land and any other immovable property of the transferee a restriction to the effect that such land and such other immovable property shall not without the consent of the Minister be alienated separately.(2B) The said registrar shall give effect to the said authorization in such manner as may to him appear to be most practicable and convenient, and thereupon such restriction shall be valid and effective against all persons except against any person (including the State) in whose favour a mortgage bond or other charge was registered against any immovable property prior to the endorsement of the said restriction on the title deeds of such property.
5. (2C) The Minister may authorize the said registrar in writing to cancel any restriction referred to in subsection (2), and the registrar shall give effect to any such authorization in such manner as may to him appear to be most practicable and convenient.
6. (2D) The Minister may, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law contained, grant the consent referred to in subsection (2) subject to such conditions as he may deem fit.”

This amendment is only necessary because after the Act had been drafted we received a letter from the Cape Provincial Administration in which anxiety was expressed that, in view of the fact that the Provincial Administration cannot pass any laws or ordinances conflicting with any Acts of this House the provision made in ordinances for the disposal of land obtained by the Province will, as a result of this amendment, no longer have the force of law. That is not our intention at all, and accordingly the new clause provides that the provincial ordinances will not be affected. This does not concern land that was transferred to the provinces by the State, but exclusively land bought by the provinces themselves or which they obtained by bequest.

New clause put and agreed to.

Title of the Bill:

Mr. Chairman, as a result of the change in the designation of the Minister, the title of the Bill also has to be amended. I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Title of the Bill, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment as printed on the Order Paper—

Mr. Chairman, during the second-reading debate, when I offered a suggestion to the hon. the Minister that there had perhaps been a mistake when the Afrikaans draft was translated into English, the Minister presented us with a long explanation as to why the word “European” was used instead of “white person”. Am I to assume that the Minister was misinformed when he gave us that explanation and that the suggestion which we gave him was a correct one and that “white person” is the correct expression to use? I raise this point because this is a non-contentious matter. We drew the Minister’s attention to what we felt was a mistake in the drafting. We have since been able to investigate this matter and found that the Minister’s explanation was really without any foundation when he endeavoured to justify the use of the word “European”.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the original explanation given to me by the law advisers was that people who are not living in the Republic of South Africa are also affected by this Bill; as they are not classified in terms of the Population Register, we cannot refer to them as “white persons” and therefore we have to use the word European, which is generally accepted. I think, however, that I have persuaded them that those Europeans can also go through as white persons. As a result of this they accepted my suggestion that it could be used in this way.

I would like to ask the hon. Minister, following his amendment, whether he now intends to introduce a definition of “white person” in terms of this clause, as in other legislation there is a definition as to what a white person is. Now this is amended merely to a “white person”, which means that this clause does not have a definition of “white person”. I should just like to ask whether the hon. the Minister is satisfied that that is in order and that it is not necessary for “white person” now to be defined in terms of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to ask the hon. the Minister to change his mind altogether about this amendment and to delete entirely the words “white person” in this clause. I do not care whether they are called Europeans or white persons; we all know what is meant. What is meant is the exclusion of Africans, of Bantu veterans from getting any pension. I think this is a situation which has long needed adjusting. I know that the hon. the Minister has said that a reason why it has been continued, is that this was introduced by the Smuts Government after the Second World War. That is not the attitude taken by this Government on hundreds of other matters introduced by the Smuts Government after World War II. It had no compunction whatever about changing anything which it did not approve of. So I see no reason why the hon. the Minister uses this as an excuse for excluding Bantu persons from War Veteran Pensions.

Earlier this Session I put a question on the Question Paper, asking the hon. the Minister how many Bantu ex-servicemen were in receipt of ex gratia payments in 1967 and what was the total amount paid to them. The amount is disgracefully low. There are only 350 of these Bantu war veterans, and there must be hundreds and hundreds more who served in World War II and World War I for that matter, who should be just as entitled to a pension as the other patriots in South Africa who volunteered for service in our armed forces. The amount received in total by these Bantu war veterans, who are allowed to get, not a pension, but ex gratia payments, is R14,375, which amounts, if one does a little simple division, to something like R41 per annum per person, which is an ex gratia payment to somebody who volunteered for service and, although not carrying arms, very often was in the front line and very often exposed to danger. Some, indeed, gave their lives. Some of their colleagues gave their lives in assisting to get wounded soldiers off the field. I think if we are going to have any amendment to this Act at all, it should be a completely new attitude on the question of Bantu war veterans. I know that the B.E.S.L. and other organizations have long pressed for this change and for the hon. the Minister to come up with this fatuous excuse year after year when this issue is raised that the Smuts Government introduced the idea of ex gracia payments, does not mean anything as far as I am concerned. As I have said before, the Government does not hesitate to change any existing laws, regulations or customs if it happens to suit them. I should like the hon. the Minister to give this matter some attention.

Mr. Chairman. I do not know whether the hon. member for Houghton was here when the second reading of this Bill was taken.

Yes, I was.

If she had been —she says she was—she might not have heard the hon. member for Umbilo making the same plea at the second reading. The difficulty which we have at this stage is that we wanted to move an amendment to include the Bantu veterans. We wanted to move an instruction, so that the Bantu veterans could be included, or that this Committee could consider the matter. But this was not in order because it would increase the financial burden under this Bill, for which the State President’s recommendation would be required. So we were not able to discuss it. That is unfortunate.

I rise to support the plea made by the hon. member for Umbilo, a plea for a definition of a white person to be included in this Bill. At the moment there are no less than three definitions of a “white person”, i.e. in laws already passed. Firstly, the definition in terms of the Group Areas Act; secondly, in terms of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act; and thirdly, in terms of the Population Registration Act. Now the question is, what does a “white person” mean in so far as this legislation is concerned? Does one have to fall back on the common law for such a definition?

Yes.

The Minister says “Yes”. I will therefore sit down now so that the hon. the Minister can tell us what the definition of a “white person” is under common law.

Hon. members will have noticed that in the original Afrikaans there is also no definition of “white person”, but that there are definitions for the concepts of “Indian”, “Chinese”, etc. All we are doing here is to substitute the words “white person” for the word “European” in the English version. Therefore we now have precisely the same position in both cases. The position is that it is not necessary to give a definition of “white person” in an Act unless penalty provisions are contained in such an Act. In the case of this legislation, of course, there are no penalty provisions involved. Consequently the position is that any person who qualifies under the existing definition of “white person” can be considered for these pensions. If we incorporate one of those definitions in this Bill the danger exists that we may be excluding those persons who meet the definitions in other Acts. That is Why I said that the common law applies here—in other words, the law as laid down by existing legislation.

The minister’s reply is an interesting one. He says that anyone qualifying under the existing definitions of “white person” can be considered for the benefits extended by this Bill. But what will be the position if a person is classified as a “white person” under the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and as a Coloured in terms of the Population Registration Act? Does such a person qualify for a pension? The Minister seems to try to convey that that will be so.

He will get the best possible benefits under this Bill.

The Minister says such a person will get the best benefits. If that is the assurance of the hon. the Minister about the way in which such cases will be considered I agree that we should not define a “white person”.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

There are three points in connection with this clause which, I think, needs clarification from the part of the hon. the Minister. Firstly, subsection (2) states—

“Persons entitled to veterans’ pensions.” This is therefore a very important clause. It states that residence in the territories set out in sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be periods of residence in the Republic. However, subsection (1) (b) states that in order for a person to qualify for a war veterans’ pension he must at the time of making the application be resident in the Republic. I fail to see the necessity for including the provisions of (1) (b) in subsection (2). As I read the clause, the applicant must at the time of making his application be resident in the Republic. My question to the hon. the Minister therefore is, will a person living in one of these territories be entitled to apply for this pension? I can see its applicability to subsection (1) (c) (ii), which deals with the period of residence in the Republic, which is an alternative definition of a person qualifying in terms of residential qualification.

The second point that the Minister should clear up is why the provisions of subsection (2) are restricted to white persons only and excludes members of the other racial groups. Why should these not be dealt with on the same basis as the Whites? My third query is in regard to subsection (3). I realize that the Minister is empowered by other legislation to waive residential qualifications in the case of white persons coming from certain African territories—such as the Congo, Kenya and Tanzania. Subsection (3) exempts these persons from the provisions of subsection (1) (b), a subsection which states quite clearly that at the time of making his application the applicant must be resident in the Republic. There seems to me to be a certain amount of confusion in wording here. Another point I think the Minister should clarify is in connection with subsection (6). This is a permissive subsection because it says that the Secretary “may direct that the provisions of subsection (5) shall not apply in respect of any continuous period of absence of any particular pensioner between any date prior to and any date after the commencement of this Act”. Subsection (5) deals with the cancellation or suspension of a pension after a period of absence exceeding six months and lays down certain provisos in terms of which the Secretary may authorize the continuation of that pension. The wording of subsection (6) is not clear. It is not clear what the intention there is. I shall be grateful therefore to the hon. the Minister if he could give us the reasons for subsection (6) in the light of the powers that are taken to suspend or cancel a pension after a continuous absence of six months from the Republic.

I myself have misgivings about subsection (2) of this clause. This subsection has been taken over from the existing Act. It actually means that a person who is resident in Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland or South West Africa and who qualifies for a war veteran’s pension is deemed to be resident in the Republic of South Africa. This is actually what is being provided in this subsection, and this is what was provided in terms of the old Act. I have now begun to doubt whether this is still correct now that these territories have become self-governing, and whether we should continue with this arrangement. Unfortunately the matter has not come to my attention so specifically before now, and I shall be glad if hon. members will permit me to give further consideration to it. If it is necessary for a further amendment to be made in this regard in view of the new status attained by these adjoining territories, I shall rather introduce it in the Other Place after having had an opportunity of consulting the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the implications it may possibly have. But the present position is that a person who is resident in those territories will be deemed to have resided in the Republic, in terms of these provisions. Naturally, the same applies to subsection (3), and to the question the hon. member asked in that respect, although, here again, I am beginning to doubt whether the hon. member may not be right. In the case of persons coming here from other territories in Africa the concession has been made that we are already giving them a pension, even if they were resident in the Republic for less than five years out of the last ten years—probably after one year in cases where they have obtained citizenship. We are now giving them a pension, but then they have to be resident in the Republic when they apply. I think that goes without saying, but I shall give further attention to this matter as well and see whether this should not be changed.

As regards subsection (6), this is a provision which is intended to give the Secretary a certain amount of discretion regarding the period for which a person may be absent from South Africa and may still continue to draw the pension. Normally the pension has to be withdrawn if he is absent from the Republic for a continuous period exceeding six months. However, there may be special reasons for his being absent for a longer period. We should not like to do away with this restrictive provision, but in subsection (6) we are granting the Secretary a discretion to waive this six months’ provision in certain cases. I now move the following amendment, as printed—

During the debate on second reading I raised the matter of clause 3. read together with clause 15, which provided that the Minister may lay down by regulation the requirements to be complied with for a war veteran to qualify for a pension and the circumstances in which he would cease to qualify. The principle I raised was one of the nature of the normal argument that one would use in regard to delegated legislation. The matter was whether we should here determine on what basis a war veteran should qualify, or whether the Minister should be entitled to do so. Objection was taken at the time to the power of the Minister in fact to lay down by regulation further qualifications which a war veteran may require in order to qualify for a pension. The Minister replied saying that his intention was not to make it more onerous but to make the Act more easily applicable to more people, and he said I ought to know that that has always been the policy of his Department. I accept that that is the policy of his Department and I accept that they always act in as generous a way as they possibly can, but I do not want the hon. the Minister to find that his good intentions are stultified by the provisions of this Bill. Clause 3 says “Subject to the provisions of this Act, every war veteran shall be entitled to receive a veteran’s pension if the Secretary is satisfied …”, and then it lists the requirements. It says “subject to the provisions of this Act”. Now, the only provision of this Act to which that is to be subject, i.e. a statement of his qualifications, is in clause 15, in terms of which the Minister may make regulations as to the requirements or conditions “in addition to any specified in section 3”. In other words, it is not in substitution for but in addition to those mentioned in section 3. In other words, there are those requirements and the Minister can make further requirements. As this is worded, he can only make more onerous requirements, as I indicated during the second reading, and not less onerous requirements. The Minister has indicated that it is not his intention to make more onerous requirements. If that is so, I hope the hon. the Minister will give his attention to this matter. I appreciate that he cannot resolve the matter across the floor of the House, but I hope that before this Bill goes to the Other Place the Minister will give his attention to this factor which will cut his hands off in as far as his ability to grant concessions under this clause is concerned. What I would suggest is that he delete the words “subject to the provisions of this Act” in clause 3, and then in clause 15 give himself the power to vary the requirements or conditions. In that way there would be an unqualified right on the part of every war veteran who complies with the requirements of clause 3 to have a pension, and the hon. the Minister would be able in special circumstances to vary the law in hard cases in order to give pensions where otherwise they might not be given.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 15:

This clause is a most important one, as the Minister here takes the power to make regulations which will in effect be the means test under which a person can qualify for a war veteran’s pension. In terms of paragraph (a) the payment of veterans’ pensions or allowances, including the maximum amount to be paid, the determination of the amount to be paid in any particular case, the method of payment, payment to persons other than the pensioner himself and the suspension of payment, are important powers the Minister will exercise by regulation. We know that in subsection (2) the Minister has embodied in the Bill before us a provision that any maximum amount prescribed in terms of subsection (1) (a) shall not be reduced without the approval by resolution of the Senate and of the House of Assembly. We view that subsection as perhaps the most important subsection in this clause, because here we will find that in future the Minister by regulation will be able to vary the means plus pension limitation. The means plus pension limitation is the very essence of the means test. This provision here merely states that the Minister cannot reduce the maximum amount paid in terms of this section. I believe that perhaps this does not go far enough because subsection (1) (b) provides that the Minister may make regulations as to—

This is another extremely important power that the Minister is taking to exercise by regulation which will further limit a person’s possibility of qualifying for a person, due to the application of the means test. Therefore, I was wondering whether the hon. the Minister would consider the question of making provision in subsection (2) that such requirements or conditions to be complied with by a war veteran, will not be altered to the disadvantage of a pensioner without a resolution passed by both the Senate and the House of Assembly.

And paragraph (e).

Yes, paragraph (e), which is on the same basis, deals with assets and income to be taken into account. My reason for asking for an extension of subsection (2) is this: When one looks at the report of the working group on legislation for the protection of the aged—and one must remember that this Bill is more or less on the same lines as the Aged Persons Act, a draft of which was included at the time of the report of this working group—one finds that the working group recommended that similar amending legislation should also be passed in terms of the various other Acts covering various social pensions, including the war veterans’ pension. In regard to the question of altering the means test to any extent, it was stated in the report that ample opportunity would be afforded to this House and the Other Place to consider any such alterations, but it was not merely restricted to the question of the maximum amounts that can be paid in terms of the means test. Obviously there is far more involved in the means test than merely the question of the means plus pension limitation. There are other conditions which also apply and it is those other conditions which cause a certain amount of concern, and that is why I am hoping that the hon. the Minister will perhaps be prepared to reconsider the wording of subsection (2). May I read out to the Committee what the recommendation of the working group was? At page 13 of their report they said—

I feel that that recommendation goes further than the provision which is made in terms of this clause in which it is specifically stated that only the maximum amount prescribed in terms of subsection (1) (a) shall be subject to a resolution passed by this House and the Senate. I hope the hon. the Minister will give consideration to this important point which involves the question of the means test, and that we will have an opportunity to discuss the matter if it should become necessary at any time to alter the means test, apart from merely the amount that is provided for in terms of subsection (1) (a) of this clause.

Sir, I want to make a special plea under this clause to the hon. the Minister, and I want to make it especially in favour of a particular group of war veterans. I want the hon. the Minister to take into account the fact that this is the year 1968 and that this is the fiftieth anniversary of World War I. I believe that the time has come when the group of veterans from that particular war should receive some extra special consideration in the drafting of regulations under this clause. Sir, in the administration of these regulations one comes across many hard-luck cases where people almost qualify under the means test, as provided for in clause 15 (1) (e). If the Minister is going to make regulations under this particular clause, I want him to consult adequately with those people who attend to the wants of those people, because they know when the person who needs it most at that particular time of life is debarred from receiving what I honestly and sincerely believe every member of this House would want him to have under this particular Act. I believe that this is an opportunity for the hon. the Minister to make a gesture towards this group of people who are getting fewer and fewer. I believe that we can afford to be particularly generous to them in framing regulations under paragraph (e) of subsection (1).

I doubt whether this is the right occasion to discuss the position of a particular group of war veterans. I have noted what the hon. member for Umlazi said. I think the right occasion for dealing with that matter in greater detail will be when my Vote comes up for discussion. I would prefer not to discuss one particular group of pensioners under this Bill now, as other groups will then be discussed as well and we do not know where it may end.

As regards the hon. member for Umbilo, I sympathize with what he suggested. It has never been and it is not now the intention that the Minister should be able to utilize his administrative machinery to make regulations to the detriment of persons entitled to benefits under an Act. I think it is a perfectly good suggestion that we should reconsider the legislation to see whether paragraphs (a), (b) and (e) of clause 15 (1) cannot be made subject to the provision that no amendment may be made to the detriment of the war veterans without a prior resolution being passed by both Houses of Parliament. I shall reconsider this in order to find a suitable wording and then I shall move an amendment at a suitable opportunity.

Clause put and agreed to.

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

This amendment is to accede to the request made by the Opposition, which I consider to be a reasonable request, in connection with the position that in the case of blind persons it may very easily happen that a blind person is obliged to leave the country for more than six months in order to receive medical treatment, for example. For that reason I am moving this amendment which leaves it to the discretion of the Secretary to continue the payment of pensions in such cases.

I would like to say that we on this side of the House welcome the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister. It meets the difficulty we raised during the second-reading debate and we thank the Minister for moving this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, to a certain extent this Bill alters the administration of this Fund. This Fund was established under a very old Act, namely an Act of the Cape of Good Hope of 1895, and we know that certain adjustments have had to be made regarding the administration of the Act based on the actuarial valuations from time to time. This clause deals with actuarial valuations. Reading the Bill one can see that the administration of this Fund is based to a great extent on these valuations. The membership of this Fund is decreasing. The administration of the Fund is such that a bonus is calculated based on the actuarial report. From the reply to a question which I asked in 1964 it transpired that there were 880 members of the Fund, whilst the reply to a question asked during the present Session showed that the membership had decreased to 734. Previously the survivors, the widows, benefited by receiving a bonus where there have been substantial surpluses. The last bonus, of 110 per cent, was with effect from 1st January, 1961. However, since then the revenue of the Fund is obviously decreasing, and at the same time the expenditure is also decreasing. Taking the actuarial valuation as a basis, it is possible to assess the possible future of the Fund. It would appear that because of the way in which the Fund is being administered it should have standing to its credit a substantial amount when the time arrives that there are no longer any beneficiaries. It would appear that in terms of this clause the Fund, which has annual accounts, is only subject to actuarial valuation every five years after the 31st March, 1970. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that the actuarial valuation at five-yearly intervals will be to the advantage of the Fund. As I said, the administration of the Fund is unique, and although it may be argued that there are similar provisions made for certain other funds, nevertheless the Fund is administered in a unique fashion. In the result it might be necessary to have more frequent actuarial valuations. I realize that the costs of such valuations will have to be borne by the Consolidated Revenue Account and not by the Fund itself. But despite this, I am in favour of more regular valuations because I believe the Minister will then be able to follow more accurately the decline of this Fund, because eventually the Fund will have to be wound up when there are no more beneficiaries in existence. I believe it would be in the interests of the good administration of the Fund if the hon. the Minister were to decide on an actuarial valuation every three years rather than every five years. When the Fund had surpluses the beneficiaries received increased bonuses. However, according to the figures furnished to hon. members, the Fund has had a deficiency each financial year, and the deficiencies have been met by payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The question of the regular actuarial valuations I believe is most important. Various insurance funds also have actuarial valuations at three-yearly intervals. I would be pleased if the Minister would consider three-yearly actuarial valuations rather than five-yearly. Perhaps the Minister could also indicate to this committee what he visualizes the future of the Fund to be in view of the decreasing number of persons receiving benefits and a decreasing amount being paid out as benefits, whilst at the same time the Fund’s revenue is also decreasing. If one studies the figures contained in the reports one must remember that the widows concerned express concern from time to time regarding the future of the Fund because it is a very old Fund. We know they are entitled to other allowances in terms of other provisions. However, I feel that as we are now discussing this clause, the time is opportune for the Minister to give us his reasons why he only wants five-yearly actuarial valuations. Perhaps he can also give us an indication of how he sees the future of the Fund.

Mr. Chairman, the problem that is overlooked by the hon. member for Umbilo is the fact that actuarial valuations of a fund are relatively expensive. Especially where one is dealing with a fund such as this, which is not a very large one, each actuarial valuation places a particularly heavy burden upon the fund, because the fund itself pays for the actuarial valuation.

But clause 9 (1) provides that the cost of “actuarial investigation … shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund”.

This only applies to costs in connection with the administration of the Fund. It does not include the valuation of the Fund. In the case of all pension funds it is customary for the costs of actuarial valuation to be borne by the funds themselves. Consequently it will be a considerable increase of the burden on the Fund. At the moment there is no real cause to be concerned about the Fund. For the moment we think that we can carry on as at present until the next valuation. At that stage, unless there is a sudden and rapid decrease in the number of beneficiaries falling under the scheme, there cannot yet be a marked change in the position. If there should be a sudden and rapid decrease in the membership of the Fund as a result of a large number of the members dying within the space of two or three years, and very few members remain, then we shall naturally have to reconsider the matter immediately. Then we can see what can be done. But with the present rate at which the number of beneficiaries and the income of the Fund are decreasing, and the gradual decrease in the assets of the Fund, it seems to us that we should leave the matter as it is. The possibility exists at present that the Fund is heading for a deficit. If such a deficit should occur, it will naturally have to be supplemented by the State.

Clause put and agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is not only a short one, but also contains no new, far-reaching principles. What is being proposed here is merely an insertion to facilitate the application of the Slums Act for local authorities, from the financial point of view, by enabling them to rid themselves more quickly of the financial burden resting upon their shoulders as a result of the publication of slum notices.

The amendments concerned are in fact being introduced at the request of the United Municipal Executive of South Africa. I believe that they deserve general support. As the Act reads at present, and has indeed stood for years, a local authority incurs certain costs in respect of the publication of slum notices when slums are declared. The local authority, however, can recover these costs only when it pleases the owner at some stage to request the withdrawal of the slum declaration.

Meanwhile these costs are borne by the local authority—in actual fact the ratepayers of that local authority. So, for example, there is a case of a local authority that incurred costs for notices in respect of quite a number of slum declarations amounting to R4,000 over a period of 18 months, and has recovered only R750 to date. It now has to wait for the outstanding amount until such time as the slum owners one day request that the declarations be withdrawn. There is probably no one in this House who is not keen to see the slum conditions in our country cleared away. The position which I have sketched means that the more vigorously a local authority tackles its slum clearance, the greater the financial burden it takes upon itself, without knowing when such costs will be recovered. The aggregate costs to a local authority of a large number of slums in its area may amount to a very considerable sum, while to the individual slum owner it is actually a negligible amount. What it amounts to is that the total cost in respect of the publication of notices for a single property is about R6. I think that owners of slum properties can afford to pay this negligible amount quickly and not wait until the area is one day removed from the slum list.

Clause 2 is merely a consequential amendment that has to be made.

Mr. Speaker, we support this Bill but there are one or two remarks which I think must be made. You will remember, Sir, that originally the local authority was charged anyway with publishing a notice of this nature stating that a slum had been declared. The local authority had to publish it in certain publications, such as the Provincial Gazette, the Government Gazette and a few newspapers. A little later this hon. Minister thought that certain local authorities were not co-operating well enough with him. He then forced the issue through slums clearance courts and also made the local authority responsible for paying for the notices. The slums clearance court then had to publish the notice and the Minister or the court could recover the money from the local authority. He was very quick to make sure that the money should be recovered from the local authority, which he has done. Only a small amount is involved, but the Minister nevertheless made sure that he recovered it. Now he is going to place this extra burden on the owner of the slum, who had not asked for the area to be declared a slum. But now it has been passed on and it has gone the full cycle because the hon. the Minister wanted it. He has said himself, that the cost of such a notice can amount to R6. Recovering an amount of R6 in the case of multiple ownership such as one finds in the Indian communities of Durban, is going to take one or more clerks far more than R6 worth of time to sort the matter out, let alone recover the money. How they are ever going to recover the R6 I do not know. Now they are going to be able to take action to recover this money. Where is all this going to end? To me it is almost a pity that a Bill of this nature should be brought before this House, not only to waste the time of this House, but to set machinery in motion which is typical of the petty thinking that is attached to the administration of the laws made by this Parliament. This is not the first Bill of this kind. This principle should have been incorporated in previous legislation. This should have been thought of before, at the time when the original amendment was made. But this is characteristic of the way in which we are doing things in bits and pieces. It wastes the time of this House as well as the time and the effort of the country.

I just want to make it very clear that the original Slums Act has been on the Statute Book for many years, that is, since 1934. Since 1934 the position has been that the owner of the slum eventually pays the cost in that connection. Since that time not much attention has ever been given to slum clearance in South Africa. It is only because it has now become a problem that we are trying to tackle it with all our might. It is very easy for local authorities to declare one, two or three slums in their areas and then to bear the cost themselves. But we are insisting that large slum areas should now be cleared. If that is what that hon. member calls petty action, then he may call it that as far as I am concerned, but I shall continue with it. I am going to try, and I am going to do my best, to make the cities of South Africa better and cleaner.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker. I move—

Hon. members have probably noticed that the measure we are considering here to-day, corresponds to a provision contained in a Bill which stood over from the previous session. In this regard I am referring to the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Amendment Bill, 1967. As hon. members will notice, we are not proceeding with those provisions of the latter Bill which are more specifically concerned with race definitions. I think that we should give them further thought before we proceed with them.

Nor do I want to repeat here to-day what I said during the Second Reading of that Bill, and I accept, as we all did at that time, that there is no difference of opinion among us as to the necessity or desirability of prohibiting mixed marriages. However, on the previous occasion the hon. member for Durban (North) touched upon a few aspects at which I want to pause briefly to-day.

If I understood the hon. member correctly at that time, he had misgivings about the desirability of amending the Act for the sake of one or two isolated cases only. I do not know what statistics the hon. member has at his disposal in this regard, but I am prepared to accept that in the past not many cases were found where male South African citizens who did not have domicile in the Republic, entered into mixed marriages abroad. However. I am not so much concerned with the numbers as with the principle and the consequences such mixed marriages may involve.

As I explained on the previous occasion, it is possible for some male South African citizens to enter legally into mixed marriages abroad, whereas others cannot do so. Nor does it necessarily follow that such marriages do not affect us simply because they were entered into abroad. To illustrate this point I may just mention here that, when a male South African citizen enters into a marriage abroad with a female South African citizen belonging to a race other than the race he belongs to, they may return to the Republic if they are South African citizens by birth or descent. In that case the fact that the man is not domiciled in the Republic will not make any difference because, after all, it is his citizenship and not his domicile that grants him the right to return to the Republic. Hon. members will therefore realize that a mixed marriage entered into abroad has in certain cases just as much real importance for us as one which is being entered into in the Republic. The difference is just that, if such a marriage were entered into at present by a South African male who is not domiciled here, we would, upon their return to the Republic, simply have to allow him and his wife to live together in wedlock in spite of our policy against mixed marriages. After all, hon. members will realize that such a situation will cause us embarrassment and that we cannot have one criterion for some mixed marriages and another for other mixed marriages. The oversight in our law which makes such a thing possible, is now being removed by the proposed amendment, and this is the only aim of this measure.

From the speech the hon. member for Durban (North) had made on the previous occasion, I also deduced that he was of the opinion that the amendment that we proposed should not be linked with citizenship. In this regard I shall quote what he said according to the weekly edition of Hansard, Col. 4717—

Apart from the fact that his statement in this regard cannot be accepted without exception, it seems to me as though the hon. member is possibly confusing the validity of such a marriage with the legal consequences of the marriage we want to prohibit with the amendment which is before the House. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is confusing the legal consequences with the validity of such a marriage. We are not seeking to control the legal consequences of a marriage by means of the proposed amendment. On the contrary, in this regard we are simply and solely concerned with the validity or rather, shall we say, the nullity of certain mixed marriages. As the hon. member knows, the validity of a marriage in South Africa, as it is in many other countries, is as a rule governed by the lex loci celebrationis, i.e. the place where the contract was concluded, and not by the lex domicilii. Although there are exceptions to the rule, domicile does therefore not determine in this country the validity of a marriage. Section 1 (2) of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, which we are amending now, is in fact such an exception. All we are doing now, is to extend this exception to South African citizenship.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid it is not quite as simple as the Minister would like to have this House believe. This amends the 1949 Act, which prohibited marriages between different race groups.

Between Whites and non-Whites.

Well, I mean different colour groups. There was one common theme in the second-reading debate in 1949 from both sides of the House, and that was that the House was opposed to blood mixture. In fact, it was not only the Members of Parliament that felt that way, but the Commission on Mixed Marriages which was appointed before that Bill was introduced, reported that that was the feeling of the whole country. My then Leader, General Smuts, in opposing that Bill, started off by saying that if there is one thing on which all South Africans are agreed it is that racial blood mixture is an evil. I mention this so as to make it quite clear that the country as a whole is against mixed marriages because of the blood mixture.

I emphasized that.

However, there are differences of opinion as to the best way of combating this. The Government thinks the best way is to legislate. In 1949 we made it clear through our Leader, General Smuts, that we did not believe that prohibiting legislation was the solution to the problem. In fact I think we have been proved right, because if one studies the records of the courts I do not think prohibiting legislation has proved the solution for this evil. However, as the law now stands, there is a prohibition and every South African who lives in the country knows that there is a prohibition, or he should know the law. As the Bill was originally drafted, all mixed marriages were void. But after the discussion in the second reading and the opposition put up by the United Party and the other groups, the then Minister, Dr. Dönges, in the Committee Stage introduced a very important amendment to give protection in certain cases. He also, I might say in passing, gave a definition of what a European was and what a Coloured person was. That definition is not similar to the definition of a European in other laws, but let me say that I am glad that the definition as originally applied still remains, because I think it is the fairest definition one can get of what a European is. In moving his amendment, Dr. Dönges made it clear that what he intended to do was to protect couples who entered into marriage in good faith and subsequently found that in fact the marriage was void because they were of different race groups. He also wished to protect the children of such marriages. In his amendment he intended, as he said in the House, to apply the law as it applied to children born of bigamous marriages. However, it was pointed out to him by my present leader that that was not how his amendment read and that in fact it went much further, and that all mixed marriages were valid, provided the marriage officer acted in good faith. When this was pointed out to him, Dr. Dönges admitted that that was not what he intended, but he said he would stick to his amendment as it was although it went much further than he intended.

I remind the House of this because I want to stress that in those discussions the main consideration was the protection of innocent people, the protection of wives who entered into the marriage in good faith and the protection of the children born of such marriages contracted in good faith, and where the marriage officer acted in good faith. However, the amendment we now have before us extends the prohibition to South Africans who are not domiciled in this country, as the Minister has stated. Previously the law applied to all South Africans domiciled in this country and to other people who, although not South Africans, were domiciled in South Africa. The Minister has said that the law of the validity of the marriage will depend on the lex loci celebrationis. It is quite true, as far as the formalities are concerned. If the formalities are applied of the country where the marriage takes place, where the person is domiciled, then the marriage is a valid one. That is what the Minister said and that is true, and I want to give an example of what it means. It means that if consent is required by the guardian in certain instances in the country of which the party is a citizen, but is not required in the country of his domicile where the marriage has taken place, then the marriage is valid without that consent, and that is why you have the Gretna Green marriages. That is why people go there to get married from France and other places, because they avoid the necessity of getting consent. I do not know why the Minister relies on that law for holding that the marriage will always be valid once it has been contracted according to the formalities of the country of domicile. That would hold if there was no express prohibition, I submit, against that form of marriage in the country to which the party moves. What worries us is the question of domicile and the rights of the children. The Minister also says the law of the domicile affects the legitimacy of the children.

It is true, normally, that if a child is born of lawful wedlock and the law of the domicile of origin gives it legitimacy, that child will be regarded as legitimate normally. But I would like to remind the Minister of a case in America. I just want to tell the House what happened there. It was a case in which legitimacy was tested. It was the case of Moore versus Paxton. The question that fell to be decided by the court in Connecticut was whether certain children who had been born in California were to be regarded as legitimate in Connecticut from the moment of their birth. The parents, who were domiciled in California, were bigamously married. The rule of Californian law says that the children of bigamous marriages are legitimate. The law of Connecticut says that such children are illegitimate. It was held that the status of legitimacy thus established by the domicile of origin must be recognized in Connecticut. The court, after demonstrating that the status must be recognized in the absence of some rule of positive law or of public policy in Connecticut to the contrary said, inter alia: “The inquiry whose answer should determine whether recognition should be accorded by the Connecticut court to the status of persons elsewhere acquired, is whether or not there is any important matter of public policy prevailing in Connecticut which will be contravened by such recognition.” In other words, one state will respect the law of another state, provided there is no question of public policy prohibiting such recognition.”

Now, what we are worried about is this: As regards applying this prohibition to South African citizens who are no longer domiciled in South Africa but are domiciled elsewhere. And by domiciled the Minister knows very well that there must be an intention to reside permanently or indefinitely in that country; that is how you acquire domicile; you cannot merely say you are domiciled in a country. The courts will not accept that. The onus is on you to prove that you have in fact changed your domicile. Where a South African has become domiciled elsewhere with the intention of staying there permanently and some woman in that country marries him in good faith, we want the assurance that that woman’s rights will be protected and that the children born from that marriage will also be protected.

Which rights do you refer to?

The right of the wife to be regarded as a married woman and the right of the children to be regarded as legitimate. If we do not take this precaution, we are placing these women abroad who marry in good faith in this position, that their South African husbands can at any time return to South Africa and so avoid all their responsibility towards their wives and families. They can come back here and marry another woman and it will not be bigamy if this Bill is passed, because it simply says the marriage will be void and of no effect in South Africa, and that is a terrible consequence. I do not think this House can ever allow such an event to happen. Also, we want the assurance that the children’s rights of succession, for instance, ab intestato, will be respected and that they will not be regarded as illegitimate children. There may be immovable property involved and the law of the country in which the property is situated will naturally apply. Now the Minister may say that if the child is born legitimately in some other country, we will respect his legitimacy here. [Interjection.] The Minister says yes, and he also says that we will protect the rights of the wife, for instance where we have reciprocal arrangements with other countries in regard to maintenance orders and their enforcement. But I submit that in any application made to the court to enforce a right arising from a marriage which is void, the courts here will say what the American courts said, namely that it is contrary to public policy, and the Minister knows very well that no court will enforce a contract which is contrary to public policy. This would be contrary to public policy, because we have definitely legislated against it. We will have passed a law saying that no matter what the private international law is, and no matter what the arrangements we have with other countries, as far as we are concerned we will have a specific law saying that these marriages will be void and of no effect.

Now I ask the Minister this. If that is not going to be the consequence, why pass this law at all? If the children are to be regarded as legitimate in the country of domicile, and if the wife is to be regarded as truly married, what is the object of passing a law of this nature? The Minister says he is not interested in numbers. I do not believe he is, because numbers do not enter into this at all. The cases will be so few that the numbers will not matter. But I would like to remind the Minister that when introducing his Bill, Dr. Dönges dealt at length with the matter of numbers. One of the reasons he gave for the introduction of the Bill was the increasing numbers. He dealt with it at great length. But that motivation which Dr. Dönges had in 1949 does not apply at all now. The Minister has inferred that in fact he has no particular case to meet at the moment, but if a South African citizen marries another South African citizen elsewhere and the marriage would have been prohibited here, they could come back to this country and then live as man and wife, and that is why he wishes to prohibit it.

That is the only reason.

Now I submit that if a South African leaves South Africa and adopts a domicile somewhere else, he is not likely to want to come back to South Africa if he has purposely adopted another domicile. How many cases do we have where they have adopted domicile and then they return to this country? The Minister has not given us any examples. [Interjection.] I am talking of the case where they go abroad and accept another domicile for the purpose of marrying a person belonging to another group. I am talking of the case where they do not mary bona fide, where a South African accepts a domicile abroad merely to marry a woman whom he would not be allowed to marry in South Africa. One of the difficulties we have in applying this law to marriages abroad is how are we to decide who is a European and who is not? This definition says: If you are obviously in appearance a European or consort with Europeans. In probably 99 per cent of the countries outside South Africa there is no racial discrimination as we know it here, and a South African may marry a woman of dark complexion in Brazil or some other country, and those women will never know whether their marriages will be recognized in South Africa. How could we apply this test to a woman who is not a South African, living abroad where they have no race classification? I submit that if this law is applied as it is now. it will bring about uncertainty. Women will never know where they stand. If it is merely to extend the principle which this House adopted on a previous occasion, in 1949, that we should have legislation prohibiting …

The preamble says so.

Yes. If it is merely to extend the principle … the House has already accepted the principle of legislating, and we took care then to protect innocent parties. The Minister shakes his head. I know that he is going to refer to the question of people who are domiciled in South Africa …

That is the clause we are amending.

… and who go abroad and marry a prohibited person there. Sir, had that not been contained in the law it would have made it so easy for people to flout the law. People domiciled in South Africa could then just go across the border, get married and come back again. They would make the law look ridiculous. But the position there is not at all the same as in the case of a person who leaves the country permanently and who does not go abroad merely to flout the law, in other words, to marry abroad and then come back with a Coloured wife. Therefore we on this side of the House feel that innocent parties must be protected, and for those reasons I wish to move the following amendment—

1. (1) the rights of women married bona fide outside the Republic and in contravention of the provisions of the Bill are not protected;
   • and
2. (2) the status and rights of any children of such marriages will be prejudiced”.

I agree with a great deal of what the hon. member for Transkei has said and I will support the amendment he has moved although I feel that it does not go far enough. However, if his amendment could be accepted by this House it would certainly help in some way to diminish the possible damage arising from this amending Bill. Sir, I think it is just absurd in this day and age for South Africa to be legislating in this way at all. To be increasing the penalties for inter-racial marriage in 1968, when every other civilized country in the world is moving right away from this concept of racial discrimination, seems to me to be an absolute anomaly, to put it at its mildest. The only other countries which until recently at any rate had actual laws on the Statute Book forbidding marriages across the colour line, were the southern states of the United States. That legislation has almost completely fallen away and it is highly doubtful now whether any of the Acts which still remain on the Statute Books of the southern states, which, incidentally, are notoriously the most backward of the states in the United States, will have any validity these days. In fact, they have not been tested for a long time and it is highly doubtful whether they would be recognized by any of the American courts, and yet here we are in South Africa solemnly introducing another piece of legislation which goes contrary to all the thinking of the modern world, and for what purpose? I think numbers are perhaps important here. How many people, how many South African citizens, who are still domiciled in this country dash out of South Africa in order to contract a marriage across the colour line? I would point out that the principal Act itself really had very little effect on the whole complexion, if I may use that rather unsubtle pun, of South Africa. The fact that the Mixed Marriages Act was passed in 1949 did not alter the racial set-up in this country at all. Before that date you could not legalize a mixed marriage in the Transvaal because there was no legal machinery provided for marriages between Whites and Africans, but the Mixed Marriages Act was not passed until 1949, and even before that the commission which investigated this matter found that fewer than 1 per cent of the marriages contracted in South Africa before 1925 were across the colour line and less than three per 1,000 in 1936. In the year before the Act was passed, i.e. in 1948, there were only 17 mixed marriages in the whole country so in those days it was not at all obvious why it was necessary to have such a law. I believe that the introduction of that Act was rightly opposed by the then Opposition because there was no real need for it. In fact, this subject of marriage across the colour line, marriage between adult individuals, should not be the subject of law at all. It is a purely personal matter and it should be left to the individuals concerned. If the actual strictures of society—and there are enough strictures against inter-racial mixing of any kind in this country—are not sufficiently strong to prevent such marriages, it is very doubtful whether laws are going to prevent miscegenation. Indeed, that has been our experience in South Africa. It is only on the fringes of society that one gets any miscegenation as such. The Immorality Act was an offshoot of the Mixed Marriages Act because one obviously could not prohibit marriages across the colour line without also prohibiting immorality across the colour line, and when I moved the deletion of those sections of the Immorality Bill, which brought so many people into disrepute …

Order! That measure is not under discussion now.

I was just saying that when I moved the deletion of those clauses, I recognized that one would also have to repeal the Mixed Marriages Act. My point therefore is that if we do any legislating in this House to amend the Mixed Marriages Act, it should be in the other direction because we are going counter to all the normal accepted moral codes in South Africa and we are also going counter, I suggest, to the normal course of acceptance in the modern world. This legislation is quite unnecessary and I do not know why the hon. the Minister has introduced it. He has not told us; he has not quoted any specific instance which will fortify his case in introducing this amending law. Sir, I wonder if he realizes in fact what a lot of damage this sort of legislation can do to South Africa? There may be other cases which I know nothing about but the one case that I can remember is a case where a couple had to cross the border in order to effect a marriage which could not be solemnized in South Africa. I refer to the famous Singh case of a few years ago where an Indian South African and a white South African woman left South Africa. I think they went to Rhodesia, where by that time the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act had been repealed. They got married there and returned to South Africa, and what happened to them? They were promptly arrested under the Immorality Act because South Africa did not accept the validity of the marriage. If I remember correctly they were acquitted on a technicality and the technicality was that the State could not prove domicile. I believe that this is one of the reasons why we have this amending Bill before the House to-day. I think it is ridiculous. That Singh case brought South Africa into the most awful disrepute. I did a little count at the time to see what happened, and I remember that one of the newspapers mentioned that 95 inches of space had been devoted in one day in British newspapers to this famous or infamous or notorious or ridiculous Singh case, 95 inches of space in British dailies and a page-long column in Time magazine with its vast readership of two million people. Honestly, Sir, was it worth it because an Indian man and a white woman decided to get married, married in Rhodesia, and came back as they wanted to live in South Africa?

They should have stopped there, since it is against public policy here.

As the hon. the Minister knows perhaps they subsequently left this country because life here was impossible for them. They went to another country in Africa where inter-racial or multi-racial or across-the-line marriages did not make everybody have a cadenza, as if the end of the world had come. Really and truly, it is time we became adults about these things. I cannot see why we are now introducing this absurd extension of the existing law which to my mind should not be there at all, but that is another matter. The hon. member for Transkei has quite correctly moved an amendment. As I have said, I shall support the amendment and I do not think it is competent for me to move anything that goes further except to vote against the second reading. The hon. member has quite correctly pointed out the consequences to women who outside South Africa marry men who are South African citizens— because that is the major alteration to the Act as I see it—and who are domiciled in South Africa and to the children of such marriages. That is a very important consideration. Of course, there is another important consideration, and that is exactly what happened to the Singhs. Take the case of a South African male who goes out of this country and marries a South African female of another colour. The hon. the Minister of the Interior could not prohibit them from returning to South Africa as undesirable aliens, as he did in the case of a well-known South African writer who married a highly cultured young lady in France who happened to belong to a different colour group. He was not allowed to bring her back to this country. She was declared an undesirable alien so that the hon. the Minister of the Interior could stop her from coming. But had the woman been a South African girl, nothing … Will the Minister tell me whether that is correct?

That is correct. That is the point.

Yes, that is the whole point and the reason for this Bill. So back they come because the hon. the Minister of the Interior cannot stop them from coming and out comes the claws of the Minister of Justice and he grabs them under the Immorality Act. Now, can you imagine the situation if this happened in this country? Can you imagine what tremendous uproar there will be overseas? Two people, two South Africans, who might have married overseas and been living together for a number of years, for reasons best known to themselves decide to return to their own beloved country only to be arrested immediately under the Immorality Act.

They gave up their domicile before.

That may be so. But for heavens’ sake, is that a crime? The nicest thing about being alive in 1968 is that one can fly happily around the world so easily; that one can visit other countries and even live there for a few years and then change your mind and decide to come back to South Africa again. Is there anything wrong in that? It is not a sin to want to try another country.

Order! I think the hon. member is opening the subject too widely now.

I am sorry, Sir, for being so bold. The hon. the Minister …

The hon. member must not allow herself to be tempted by the hon. the Minister.

I am seldom tempted by him, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps he does not try hard enough! But may I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister himself said that that was the whole point of the legislation he was introducing. Therefore I submit that I am entitled to explore it fully. I say it is a most dangerous thing the Minister is doing here to-day. It has become a new thing to talk about a “verligte” image but if we want to project that image to the outside world this is a most ludicrous way to go about it.

So I want to add my plea, for what it is worth, to other words which have been uttered in this House this afternoon and ask the Minister not to proceed with this thing. I find this a repulsive piece of legislation—it is repulsive to me that we have to go to these lengths to try to victimize people who have got married because they wished to be married. Surely, it is a very personal thing indeed when one has to decide whom one wishes to marry. But now we have the entire South African law bearing down in all its harshness on these people should they decide to come back to live in this country. I shudder to think of what will happen to this country should a case occur of people who, having given up domicile, later wish to return as a married couple to South Africa with their children only to find themselves arrested under the Immorality Act. Therefore I earnestly ask the hon. the Minister not to proceed with this piece of legislation, but to withdraw it as he so courageously did when he was going to introduce legislation last year and in the end did not.

The hon. member for Houghton must excuse me if I do not immediately reply to her tirade. I want to leave her on one side, the left side, because that is after all where she belongs. I shall leave it to the Minister to reply to her—in any case he can do it with more charm than I can. I want to confine myself to the arguments raised here by other hon. members. Naturally this side of the House is not insensitive to the lot of children. But I am amazed that the United Party does not want to accept the full consequences of their own policy. It was laid down by General Smuts as the policy of the United Party that they were opposed to race integration, in other words they support the principle of legislation to prohibit this 100 per cent. If that is so, I want to ask why the United Party is not prepared to accept this legislation in all its consequences? The Act is worded in such a way that it affected people who were domiciled here. But, as the hon. member for Houghton said, a loophole was discovered in the Act. A loophole was discovered in connection with people who are South African citizens, who are domiciled in another country, who enter into a legal marriage, and who then return to South Africa. They are then legally married. This is a consequence of mixed marriages. The United Party must accept that we are now going to close the door to these people.

What about those who live here? If the marriage officer acts in good faith, whether they be Coloured and white or not, they can live together.

That may be so, but according to the Act the marriage is of no effect. It is as clear as daylight that such a marriage is of no effect. Hon. members should take a look at section 1 of the existing Act.

Firstly I should like to say something about the arguments raised by the hon. member for Transkei. He went into the case of one of the children, and he then had recourse to the American legal system and dredged up court cases which allegedly indicated that we in South Africa did not want to accept the legitimacy of those children. But surely we have our own administration of justice, and in our own law there is the well-known Seedat case. I just want to read what was said about that case. It was a Natal case. I want to read what was written in Acta Juridica of 1964—

This is a South African Appeal Court case. This ruling is accepted in South Africa.

Have you read Seedat’s case?

No. Hon. members on the other side borrowed the relevant court reports from the library, and we were thus unable to get hold of them, and that is why I have to read this little item about the case. It is an Appeal Court case and in it the principle was laid down—that is the ratio of this case. It is also an international legal rule, namely that the children will be acknowledged as legitimate according to the law which applies where the father is domiciled. If we suppose that this is not the position however, then the case cannot be distinguished from a case where the people were married here. People who were married here can have their marriage declared invalid at any time. If the parties were bona fide the children can be declared legitimate. Is that not true? Surely this is so according to the Prinsloo case. The Prinsloo case stated that children could be declared legitimate by the court. Let us now consider the practical effect of this legislation. A person goes to court and states that he wants to have his marriage annulled because it is a mixed marriage. When he makes his application he also requests the court to declare that the children born of the marriage are legitimate, that they are not illegitimate. That can be done. But suppose, for example, a marriage is entered into overseas—take the case which we are now dealing with—and one of the parties were to return to South Africa and apply for the marriage to be annulled. Even if only one of the parties were bona fide, the children of the marriage could still be declared legitimate. That is in accordance with the Prinsloo case. The Prinsloo case stated that where one of the parties to a putative marriage were bona fide, the children could be legitimized, not so? Hon. members on the opposite side probably agree with me, or should I read the Prinsloo case to them? Suppose a person who entered into a marriage overseas came to the court and declared that he was bona fide when he married. He applies for the marriage to be annulled and the children to be declared legitimate. Surely he can do that. What is bona fide in terms of the provisions of the Act? A party is bona fide if the other party to the marriage has a white appearance. Hon. members on the opposite side can ask the hon. member for Durban (North)—he was concerned in the case Herbst and Kuhn of 1961. Did the court not lay down in that case that for the purposes of this Act the criterion was one of appearance? If a person were to marry another person who was white in appearance, and he or she was under the impression that the other party was white, then he or she is bona fide. The bona fides in this case are precisely the same as the bona fides which apply to a marriage in this country where the person solemnizing the marriage was bona fide.

The girl in that case was classified Coloured under the Population Registration Act.

That is not the criterion which is being applied for the purposes of this Act. The criterion for this Act is that of appearance. The criterion is laid own as follows in the Act—

That is the criterion. In this specific Act the criterion is one of bona fides. We are not dealing with the Race Classification Act now. In other words, if a person returns to South Africa from overseas and should want his marriage declared annulled, all that he has to do is to say, “I did not know the person whom I married was a non-white; in appearance she was a white and I was therefore bona fide, and consequently my children are not illegitimate.” The court can then make an order to this effect.

And if he does not want the children?

If that is so, then surely the argument of hon. members on the opposite side falls away. Then their entire argument falls away.

And if he does not want the woman?

He must, in any case, go to court to have the marriage declared void and of no effect, not so? At the same time the applicant may ask that the children be declared legitimate. If such an order is not made by the court the practical position will remain unaltered. This the hon. member on the opposite side has now shouted at me across the floor. In reality the amendment of the hon. member is therefore not a valid one. Application for annulment must be made to the court, and at the same time the court can be asked to declare the children legitimate, and the court can declare them to be such.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prinshof has quoted from Acta Juridica one of the leading cases on this matter which was decided by the Appellate Division, by the giants who sat on that Bench in those days. This was the leading case on the legitimacy of certain children, the issue of a polygamous marriage. The facts of that case were that Seedat in fact celebrated two marriages, one in Natal and one in India, and the question was whether the children of the second marriage, the polygamous marriage, were legitimate or not. What was in issue was whether the children had to pay estate duty or not in terms of the relevant statute. One must in the first place appreciate that Seedat’s case was decided in 1917, when there was no Act dealing with this subject under discussion on our Statute Book. That was in 1917.

The Appellate Division laid down a certain proposition which in fact is the ratio of the case.

Certainly the hon. member knows it does not matter whether it is the Appellate Division or any other court which lays down a certain ratio, this Parliament can nullify any decision of a court, including the Appellate Division—it can change the law. The fact of the matter is that at the time when Seedat’s case was decided there was no legislation such as is now under discussion. Had the hon. member read Seedat’s case, he would have seen that the position is not quite as simple as the hon. member indicated. This is a most difficult, a most complicated matter so far as the application of private international law is concerned. This is in fact a conflict of laws. This matter is even more difficult because there are virtually no precedents for this type of prohibited marriage. So far as I am aware, this is the first occasion that a Bill is being passed in this form whereby the lex loci celebrationis, that the hon. the Minister spoke about which determines the validity of a marriage will be breached, will be disregarded, where the marriage was the first. As far as I am aware, there is no parallel for this anywhere. That complicates the issue.

In Seedat’s case, they decided that it is impossible for our courts when dealing directly with the position of a party to such bigamous union to say that she ever was a wife in the sense in which our law uses that term, “from which it follows that she cannot be recognized as a surviving spouse within the meaning of the statute. It is a hard result, no doubt, that a woman validly married in one part of the British Empire should not be treated as a wife in another part. But relief can only be properly sought from the legislator.” That is for the information of the hon. member for Prinshof. This is what they said:

Mr. Speaker, the legislature, I shall indicate, did otherwise decide in 1949 and will otherwise decide if this Bill goes through in this form.

But more important than that is another part of the same judgment. This is the judgment of Innes C.J., where it was said, when they decided that the children of the union were legitimate for the purpose of succession to movables:

There is the big difference. They left the question open in 1917. This is no authority. Seedat’s case is no authority whatever to-day, for the proposition even that the hon. member relied on. Certainly the question they have left open has not, to my knowledge, been decided as to whether they will in fact say that legitimate children in terms of the application of the law of the domicile may succeed to immovable property here. The hon. member for Transkei pointed out that that will be determined by the lex situs.

So you see, Mr. Speaker, as we go on and on with this discussion, the matter becomes more and more complicated. But I am glad that the hon. member for Houghton will support our amendment. Frankly, I feel that anyone who encourages the mixture of blood needs his head read, whether it is in South Africa or any other part of the world, whether civilized or not.

No other civilized country has such a law.

Yes, but my point is that anyone who encourages admixture of blood, even in a civilized country, needs his head read because it can only bring unhappiness to all the persons concerned.

It is your own personal decision.

I want to leave the temptation of the hon. member for Houghton, and deal rather with the loophole the hon. the Minister has talked about.

He says that there are no cases that he has in mind, no cases at all. There are no cases that he contemplates and knows of. I should not think anyone would contemplate such cases. Anyone who leaves the country and gets married to someone whom he discovers is in fact a non-European in terms of this Act, is most unlikely to come back.

[Inaudible.]

No, I am not. Here we introduce a Bill: If someone is going to come back, and the hon. the Minister could perhaps tell us who they are, after going mala fide—this is the point—then this is an entirely different proposition. Our proposition relates to those who are married bona fide. We could go on like this for days, talking about the effects of it. But, without having a concrete example, without knowing the evil the hon. the Minister wants to counter, this is like a blind man in a dark room, looking for a black cat that is not there. We could go on like this for ever. Does this not really make a mockery of a religious marriage? One of my non-legal colleagues suggested that one ought to have some sort of amendment as the result of this provision, to provide that in the marriage service outside South Africa, when anyone marries someone who might be non-European in terms of our laws, the words “till death us do part” should be deleted and substituted by “until I return to South Africa”.

How stupid!

Yes, how stupid. Exactly !

[Inaudible.]

I do not often agree with the hon. member for Brakpan, but on this occasion I do. How stupid is it? That is precisely what is provided here. The Church would not countenance it, obviously. [Interjection.] As the hon. member for Brakpan said, it would be stupid, but that is exactly the effect that this amendment would have. One goes over there, one gets married …

That was exactly your attitude in 1949—opposed to this legislation.

No. No amount of this sort of thing can detract from the fact that this is the effect that it could have. If the hon. member for Brits does not like it, he must use his influence to see that that sort of thing cannot occur under this Bill. That is exactly the effect that it has.

Why do you not have the courage to propose the repeal of the Act? You are too spineless.

Order!

It is not very often that we have the position that there is a Bill which is to deal with something and the hon. the Minister cannot tell us who is going to be affected, or whether in fact there is anything known. Why are we passing this Bill then? Gilbert and Sullivan, in “Trial by Jury” said: “I am the parliamentary draftsman; I make the country’s laws; and of half the litigation I am undoubtedly the cause.” Well, Sir, I would like to say that this may well be the cause of litigation if in fact anything will come of it, if there are these people that will come back. But let me say this to the hon. the Minister. The lex loci celebrationis deals with the formalities of the matter. If the marriage was conducted in accordance with the formalities of the country where it was celebrated, then it is valid. It is the domicilium which deals with the consequences. I dealt with Seedat’s case and as to what that said about the consequences. Seedat’s case was dissented from by the Federal Appeal Court of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The matter is by no means clear. The hon. the Minister may feel that the law is clear, but I promise him that if he will go into this and take some time to look into this matter after the second reading, he will find that the matter certainly is not clear. There is no guarantee that the lex loci domicilium is going to be followed.

Let us take the position of the Act itself as it stands and as it is about to be amended. We provide here that, if the marriage has been solemnized in good faith by a marriage officer and neither party has made any false statements relating to the marriage amounting to a contravention, that marriage shall be deemed to be valid. Then it goes on to say that the children conceived or born of the marriage during the time of the marriage, are deemed to be legitimate. Then the Act goes on to provide that when persons are married outside of the Republic, under different circumstances, in contravention of the provisions of this Act, their marriage is unlawful. As to the consequences, there is nothing said whatsoever. If I were arguing the case for someone whom the Minister of Justice is proceeding against I would be entitled to argue that the legislator intended that this relief should not attach to marriages which were conducted outside the Republic.

That was the intention.

As my hon. Leader says that was the intention. How can we legislate to provide that marriages solemnized in good faith are invalid? Let us take it so far as to say that the parties acted in good faith because there could be situations where they did not act in complete good faith although married by a marriage officer who acted in good faith. Then their marriage is valid and their children are legitimate. In the case of people who marry here the wife is protected. But if someone goes overseas and gets married in another country, then a fortiori we should extend those benefits to the wife and children of such a marriage. But we do not. Perhaps the hon. the Minister in his reply will tell us why we do not and why we should not. The fact of the matter is that if anyone who is a citizen of this country leaves intending to obtain domicile somewhere else, it simply means that he is there and intends to stay there permanently. He intends to make that place his permanent home. There he goes to a church, goes through a lawful marriage ceremony and there he has children.

Everything is legitimate and everything is in order.

Yes, everything is then in order. But then he decides to come back to South Africa. He may have been deported but he may decide to return.

Or to shirk his responsibilities to his wife.

Yes, he may say that he is tired of his wife and decides to return to South Africa. Let us say that he does not have any children. He tells his wife that he is tired of her and that he is going to return to South Africa. He then returns to South Africa and marries someone else here. He can marry someone else the moment he steps ashore here.

This ought to be called “The Promotion of Bigamy Bill”.

One of the difficulties with which we were faced the last time a Bill of this nature came before this House and which we also faced in 1949 was that while it was easy for Indians and Bantu to know who was an Indian and who was a Bantu it is not so easy to know who is a Coloured person. A person who is obviously in appearance a white person is a white person, but if he is not obviously in appearance a white person, then he is a white person if he habitually consorts with Europeans as a European. When this is extended to another country, you habitually consort with white people. That person may habitually consort with non-white people here but the man who marries her might not know this. To that marriage there must attend all the consequences that we do not extend to mixed marriages in this country.

I think that this Bill can do no good. If the hon. the Minister is right when he says that he does not anticipate anyone having to be dealt with in terms of it, then let him withdraw the Bill. He should withdraw it and reconsider the matter when and if the situation arises. But let us not now proceed to do something that will have evil consequences if there are such people as those to whom the hon. the Minister referred. I hope that he will in fact withdraw this Bill and that he will give further thought to the arguments that have been advanced to-day before we get to the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, told us a cat story. I think that this was very appropriate, because he had the cat by the tail. I do not want to disturb this calm atmosphere in which we have been discussing this matter up to now. I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Durban (North). Mr. Speaker, I am not going to keep you occupied with a long account of legal arguments here. I think we must return to the principle of this Bill. It is the principle which is at issue here. This is a principle which is also recognized by members on the Opposition side and which is accepted, in the words of the hon. member for Transkei, “by all sides of this House”. It is a principle which has been elevated in our legislation and in our statements on both sides of this House into a matter of public policy. What has happened now is that the hon. member for Transkei, if I understood him correctly, quoted an American case and said that an American court had stated that there was no reason why they could not accept a California ruling in Connecticut, except if there were a reason “why it should not be recognized as a matter of public policy”. That is precisely what we are dealing with. Even if a marriage has been solemnized outside the boundaries of the Republic and that marriage is legal there—as we had with the California case—then we must determine here whether there is no reason, on the grounds of public policy, why that marriage should not be recognized here. That is precisely what the position is. It is based on the principle of public policy, public policy which is accepted in this House on both sides, and has been embodied in legislation.

We come now to a second matter, and this is the reason why I am returning to the principle of the legislation. In the existing legislation a further principle has been accepted which provides that where a person who is domiciled here, whether he is a citizen or whether he is a non-citizen of the Republic, enters into such a marriage, then such a marriage is illegal. Now we find the anomaly here that we are making a stricter law for the per-son who is domiciled here and who is not a citizen, but that we are allowing a citizen of this country a liberty which we are not allowing a person who is domiciled here. It is being denied to the man who comes to live here without being a citizen of the Republic, and who is only domiciled here. The South African who was born under this law and has given up his domicile, is being allowed the freedom to enter into a marriage against the principles of our legislation, a freedom which is not being granted to a domiciled person. This is an anomaly. This principle, in respect of domiciled persons, is contained in the existing legislation, and it is not my intention to criticize that principle. The existing legislation has already been passed. I accept the principle in the existing legislation, but I want to point out that, in the amendment before us, an obvious anomaly is now being rectified. Now, it is true that we have every sympathy with those people who may find themselves in a difficult position, and with the children whose future may be uncertain. But I want to remind hon. members on that side of the House that there is a legal expression which we very often hear in our legal circles. It is that we cannot make legislation for the exceptions, but that we must legislate according to principles because “hard luck cases make bad law”.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, with all respects, that hon member is a political “hard luck case”. The position now is that a dispute is being unleashed on behalf of a South African citizen who gets married abroad because it may entail certain complications for his wife and children. But this is already the present position. But what about the domiciled person who goes abroad, retains his domicile and is married there? In his case we say that the marriage is null ab initio; we do not recognize it. But the South African citizen who gives up his domicile and does the same thing is let off. Do you see now what the logical conclusion would be, also in respect of the further consequences of the marriage, as regards the children, etc.? Now the position further—and this has already been emphasized— is that if such a South African citizen does in fact get married there, there is no uncertainty. We have these criteria to which his wife must comply. If she satisfies those criteria—and they are very easy criteria—they can enter the country and then the marriage, and all the consequences of the marriage, are legal. I do not see therefore how this will result in exceptional privation.

But we must also take note of another possibility. As the Act stands at present we can find a South African citizen who leaves the country and pretends to give up his domicile, but who secretly retains the animus revertendi, which is the criterion as to whether you have given up your domicile or not, and who leaves the country mala fide precisely so as to enter into such a marriage, and who subsequently informs us: I have now acquired the animus revertendi and I am returning. That South African citizen, whose actions are mala fide, is subsequently in a much more favourable position and is really being allowed to break the law wilfully and with malice aforethought, whereas the domiciled person is prohibited from doing so. Surely that is an anomaly, and in view of this it is only fair that we should introduce legislation which will place both the domiciled non-citizen as well as the citizen of South Africa who, whether bona fide or mala fide professes to have given up his domicile, on the same level. It is of no use our arguing whether such legislation is necessary or not. We have been dealing with this existing legislation in this House, and we have accepted that legislation. We are simply dealing with the single principle as to whether a South African citizen, who leaves the country, should be in a more favourable position than a person who is domiciled in South Africa.

The hon. members for Odendalsrus and Prinshof seem to find it difficult to understand why we on this side of the House do not support this amending legislation when we are ad idem with the Government that it is undesirable to foster mixed marriages between different racial groups. Sir, our attitude to this type of legislation and the reason why we think this matter cannot be dealt with by legislation satisfactorily was set out very clearly by General Smuts when he led off the debate in 1949 and by other speakers who followed him. It would be well for the hon. members for Prinshof and Odendaalsrus to study carefully what was said by these hon. members, because I believe that the criticism that they presented to the House in support of their argument that it was undesirable to try to stop this by legislation has been proved correct by what has happened throughout the intervening years from 1949 until to-day. We do not believe that this sort of thing can be satisfactorily dealt with by legislation, but we believe also that the tragedy of this type of legislation is that it creates a lot of problems for perhaps innocent people, children and wives who are in no way to blame. It is for this reason that we do not believe that this amending Bill can be supported.

The hon. member for Prinshof made an interesting statement during his speech. He said that the Government were not insensitive to the lot of innocent children who might be affected, but he suggested that they were entirely protected. He quoted the case of Seedat. The hon. member for Durban (North) has replied to that and has pointed out that Seedat’s case is not a proposition at all for the view that the children are automatically legitimate if they are legitimate according to the law of the country of domicile. That issue was not decided in that case. [Interjection.] It goes further than this, because we are amending the common law. We did so, first of all, in 1949. From that stage onwards the common law was amended, and even if that principle, as suggested by the hon. member for Prinshof, could be extracted from Seedat’s case, once we had changed the law to declare marriages of a certain type null and void in this country, that principle can no longer apply, because anything that Parliament passes to-day or has passed in the past overrides any decision which was given before that legislation was passed. So it is perfectly clear, in our opinion, that by this amending legislation which is before the House at the moment, the children may not be legitimate in so far as the laws of succession are concerned. They may also not be regarded by our courts as legitimate for the purposes of maintenance. This is important, because it seems to me, from the arguments of the hon. members for Prinshof and Odendaalsrus, that if this is the case they would perhaps be prepared to so amend this amending legislation as to protect those people. I gather that the hon. member for Prinshof was sufficiently concerned about this to wish to protect the position certainly of the children and also perhaps of an innocent wife.

An innocent spouse can apply to court for the legitimization of the children. That is the position at the moment.

The position is not as simple as the hon. member for Prinshof would like the House to believe. Let us take the case of maintenance, for example. We passed an Act in 1963 dealing with maintenance.

You have not answered my question in regard to legitimization.

If the hon. member would just be a little patient, I will deal firstly with the question of maintenance, because it is simpler to explain that position to him, and perhaps I could then go on to the question of legitimacy.

In 1963 we passed an Act to consolidate the laws relating to the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders. It was Act No. 80 of 1963. In regard to final orders of maintenance, our courts are obliged to make these an order of court if the courts are satisfied that it was properly made by a court outside the country. This is provided in section 3.

In regard to provisional maintenance orders, our courts do not automatically make them orders of court. The respondent, who would be the father, has the right to appear before the court and to attempt to prevent the order being made an order of court. I suggest that since hon. members opposite admit that this legislation that we are now putting through the House is based on public policy, in other words, that it is contrary to public policy to have mixed marriages, it is perfectly clear that the respondent would be able to allege that in terms of South African law the marriage upon which the maintenance order is based cannot be recognized; it is void and of no effect as far as our courts are concerned. That being so, he could allege that in terms of our law, our courts would not be entitled to recognize any rights arising from that situation, and therefore the courts would not recognize any maintenance order.

Are the natural parents not always liable for maintenance in our courts?

Hon. members opposite do not seem to realize that by passing this type of legislation they are going contrary to all the recognized principles of international law and the recognized principles of common law regarding maintenance, because they say quite clearly and unequivocally: In South Africa such a marriage is void and of no effect.

That does not affect the maintenance.

Of course it affects the maintenance. If our courts are faced with a maintenance order arising from a marriage entered into by parties outside South Africa and our courts are told that in terms of this amending legislation such a marriage is void and of no effect whatever, then surely that is exactly the attitude that the courts must take, that is to say, that the marriage is void and of no effect, and if it is void and of no effect, how can our courts in South Africa recognize any right as arising from such a marriage?

Including maintenance?

Including maintenance. Sir, it does not help to quote cases which were decided by our courts before the 1949 Act was passed or before the passing of this amending legislation, because the judgments in those cases are rendered of no effect because we are changing a fundamental principle here. The hon. member for Prinshof referred to the case of Prinsloo and said that where one of the parties bona fide enters into the marriage, the children can be legitimated. There are two points that arise from this. First of all, Prinsloo’s case was decided before this legislation and the judgment in that case is no longer of any effect.

Prinsloo’s case was decided in 1958.

Prinsloo’s case did not decide the question of legitimacy in respect of children who were born under the 1949 Act. It had nothing to do with a mixed marriage entered into outside of South Africa—nothing at all. But the other question that arises is this: The husband concerned may well wish to be released from his obligations and may come back to South Africa simply for that very purpose, the South African courts would then take no account of his marriage and would not regard any responsibility as flowing from such a marriage, in connection with maintenance or succession or anything else. The hon. the Minister, in introducing this legislation, referred to the lex loci celebrationis,which is the law of the place of marriage, and he suggested that if the parties were validly married in terms of that law, then the marriage would be a valid marriage.

In that country.

Yes, in that country. That is the point. It is a valid marriage in that country but in South Africa it would not be recognized as a valid marriage.

That is exactly the object of this legislation.

If this is the object of the legislation, then the Government must also realize that it will have the same effect as far as the consequences of marriage are concerned. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member over there has just entered the Chamber; he has not heard the rest of the debate. He should perhaps read our amendment first and then he can make interjections of that sort.

Do you know what principle is at stake here?

We would like the hon. the Minister to elaborate on the statement he has just made. He admits that this legislation specifically makes the marriage null and void in South Africa. If that is so, could he explain to us how a South African court, if it must regard the marriage as being null and void, could recognize any rights as flowing from such a marriage? It is nonsense, Sir, because the South African courts must take the attitude that that marriage never took place and that it does not exist. That is the meaning of the term “null and void and of no effect”. The South African courts must therefore take the view that the person concerned has not contracted any responsibilities arising from that relationship. As far as we can see it is as simple as that.

In regard to the question of legitimacy, the hon. member for Prinshof has suggested that the parents could get the child legitimated. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us how the parents would be able to do this in the South African courts. It is one thing to say that the children will be regarded as legitimate overseas, but how can a South African court say in one breath that it takes no account of the marriage and then in the next breath say that it regards the children as legitimate? Will our South African courts regard the children as succeeding in terms of the laws of intestacy? The hon. the Minister will realize that this is of considerable importance, because illegitimate children do not have the same rights in intestate succession as legitimate children and, furthermore, what is the position going to be in regard to the question of succession to immovable property? Is the child going to be allowed to succeed to immovable property in South Africa? He could do so in intestacy if he is regarded as legitimate, but then in terms of our law such a child will be regarded as Coloured, because he is the child of a union between a White and a non-White. Is he going to be permitted to succeed? The hon. the Minister thinks that he will succeed in intestacy. I would like to know on what grounds he says so.

Are you going to quote the Group Areas Act?

No, I am asking the hon. the Minister what his attitude is and I am giving another example of the difficulties and problems which arise from this legislation. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that the crux of the matter is that our courts cannot on the one hand be told to regard such a marriage as null and void and of no effect and on the other hand be expected to recognize rights as flowing from that marriage, because the rights in question are only rights which flow from a valid, legal marriage, and in terms of our law this is not such a marriage. Sir, when the hon. the Minister replies I hope he will deal with these problems, because if we cannot get satisfactory answers, it seems to us that our amendment is a very valid one and we will certainly oppose the second reading.

During the course of the debate reference was made here to many matters and a great number of points were raised. I shall reply to a few of those points, but the basic fact is this: This side of the House adopts the attitude that we are opposed to mixed marriages and miscegenation and we are implementing that policy in a logical and consistent way.

Is this logical?

We are implementing that policy to its logical conclusion. In the first place we stated that marriages between the various colour groups would not be allowed; we declared such marriages to be illegal. We closed up the loophole which could have arisen and which could have afforded a married person who was domiciled in this country the opportunity of getting married to a Coloured person outside the country and then returning. We said that such a marriage would also be illegal. But there is one remaining loophole, and that is the case of the South African citizen who is not domiciled in this country and who enters into a marriage overseas, in another country where he is domiciled, with a person of another colour group where both of them are then South Africans, and who possibly want to enter the country and live here as man and wife. That is the loophole we are now closing. We are carrying the policy of this side of the House into logical effect and we are also carrying into effect the policy of that side of the House in so far as they do not want miscegenation either, the only difference being that they do not want to prohibit it by way of legislation.

A few questions have arisen, the first one being whether such a marriage is legal. In the first instance, we are providing very specifically in this Bill that such a marriage will not be deemed to be legal within the Republic. In the Republic it will be void and of no effect. We are not talking now about what is happening outside the Republic, because we have no say there. Outside the Republic the matter is controlled by private international law. What is the position outside the Republic? The position outside the Republic is in the first instance that as far as the validity of the marriage is concerned, this is regulated by the lex loci celebrationis. That is the position, and there is sufficient authority for that I do not want to quote the other authorities now, but I do just want to read a brief extract from what Hahlo states in his “Husband and Wife”. He states—

This is what is stated by one of the greatest authorities on this particular subject. And he said this after we passed the Mixed Marriages Act in 1949.

Why are you passing this Bill then?

But surely it is quite clear. I have already stated why we want to pilot this measure through the House. We want to place this measure on the Statute Book in order to declare such marriages void and of no effect in South Africa, but where people get married outside the Republic, there the validity of the marriage is assessed and controlled by the country in which they were married. Surely that is quite clear. We now come to the consequences of such a marriage. We maintain quite rightly, and we are not ashamed of this, that if such a couple want to return to this country, then their marriage is of no effect and they are living in immorality and we take steps against them because it is against the policy of our country to allow mixed marriages, but we confine ourselves to what happens within our borders. Hon. members on that side are so concerned about the consequences of such a mixed marriage. As far as the consequences of the marriage are concerned, we are able to distinguish. Certain consequences which arise out of such a marriage, are going to be prejudicial to such a couple; there are other consequences which will not be prejudicial to them. Hon. members must bear in mind that we are now dealing with a male person who has given up his domicile in this country and who has accepted domicile in another country, and who has gone and married a Coloured woman. While the marriage is valid in the country where they were married, what is the position of the children of such a marriage? Provision is not made by the lex loci celebrationis for the position of the children. Provision is made for their position by thelexdomicilium.We simply cannot get away from that; there are various authorities for that and I shall refer in a moment to the Seedat case. We are now dealing with a South African citizen who has accepted completely legal domicile in another country; in other words, the children have been legitimately born according to that legislation. In fact, they have also been legitimately born according to our legislation, judging from the Seedat case. Various hon. members on the opposite side have said that we cannot take the Seedat case as an authority because it was heard by the court before this Act was passed, before we “formally declared it to be against public policy” but when the Seedat case was being heard, polygamous marriages were also against “public policy”. [Interjections.] Of course it was against public policy—in this country polygamous marriages have always been against public policy, and notwithstanding that we find in Seedat’s case that the court ruled the children to be legitimate. It will be precisely the same case here, and therefore I cannot see how, in this connection, any injustice can be done to innocent children born of such a marriage.

I come now to the hon. member for Musgrave and what he had to say about maintenance orders. If there is an agreement existing between two countries in regard to the implementation of maintenance orders, then the position is simply that a legal order is made against a man who now finds himself in a country other than the one where the order was made, has to be implemented in that country. Our court does not go into whether the court in the other country did in fact issue a legal order. The law of this country is not applied for that purpose. All our court has before it is a legal order, and it is carried out in this country.

What about provisional maintenance?

No, the application will take place outside the Republic and it will be capable of being effected within the Republic. There is no doubt about that whatsoever.

How many countries do we have reciprocal agreements with?

At this stage I cannot say. I readily concede that if a South African citizen who has not given up his South African citizenship wants to have such a marriage dissolved he can return to this country and he will be at liberty to enter into a second marriage in this country. That is the position and I do not want to find fault with it. In South Africa we do not regard the first marriage as a proper one.

Hon. members on the opposite side also spoke about numbers. I stated from the outset that as far as I was concerned, it was not a question of numbers, for me it was merely a case of implementing the principle to its logical conclusion. That is what we are doing in this measure. I am not replying to the hon. member for Houghton because as far as these matters are concerned, we differ so vastly from each other as regards our approach and views that we simply cannot find a common meeting ground. I have already told the hon. member previously: “East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.” That is precisely the case with us. I cannot reply to her points and the hon. member must simply accept it like that. I view matters of this kind in a different light to that in which the hon. member views them.

Seedat’s case is also a reply to the point raised by the hon. member for Transkei in connection with the California/Connecticut case, where it was stated that it was held to be against public policy. The reply is as I indicated earlier on. I do not know whether the hon. member was then present in the House. I explained that in Seedat’s case it was also stated that a polygamous marriage was against public policy, but that the Appeal Court nevertheless found that the children were legitimate. That is why the American case which was quoted is not relevant. In all these circumstances I feel that since this loophole has always existed in our legislation, since we are prohibiting miscegenation step for step, I do not hesitate for one moment to ask this House to expand the provisions so that South African citizens who are not domiciled here will also be affected.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

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

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Agreed to.