Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the year 1970 will not only be known as the Water Year, but will indeed also be known as the Year of the Bible, or Biblia 70. The reason is that this year, 1970, it is 100 years ago that the first Bible distribution organization was established in South Africa. I think it redounds to the great credit of South Africa and the Parliament of South Africa that the Bible Society has felt itself free to approach Parliament and to ask Parliament to give it (the Bible Society), for the reasons which I shall mention here, its own Act under which it may operate. The fact that the Bible Society felt itself free to address this request to Parliament, illustrates more than anything else that South Africa is in fact a Christian country and can lay claim to being one. This is also confirmed by the fact that Parliament was not only prepared to accede to this request, but indeed, has also set aside time, and in fact made time, during this short Session to give effect to this fine request made by the Bible Society.

Mr. Speaker, the name British and Foreign Bible Society has been known to most of us since childhood as the name of the organization whose primary and sole task it has been to distribute the Bible in South Africa. In passing, one may just note that on 23rd August, 1820, 150 years ago, the South African Auxiliary Bible Society was established in Cape Town under the chairmanship of the then Governor, Sir Rufane Donkin, and that the name was later changed to the British and Foreign Bible Society of South Africa, as we have known it. This remained the position until 1965, when the South African branch of that Society became independent. But notwithstanding the fact that it had become independent, it was still left hanging in mid-air, because it did not have its own Act, and it was still regarded as a foreign company in the records of the Registrar of Companies. The purpose of the legislation now before the House is to grant the Bible Society its own South African Statute as a South African company or organization, whatever one wants to call it.

If one looks at the history of this Bible Society, one is struck by the fact that the Bible appeared in the Tswana language as long ago as 1857. That was the first complete Bible to appear in a Bantu language in Africa. Then followed the complete Bible in Xhosa in 1859, in Southern Sotho in 1881, in Zulu in 1883, in Northern Sotho in 1904, in Afrikaans in 1933, and it is interesting to note in passing that since 1933 no fewer than 6 million Bibles have been printed in Afrikaans and distributed. Then followed the Bible in Venda in 1936, in Ndonga in 1954, in Tsonga in 1957, and in Nama in 1967. One would also like to mention the New Testament which appeared in Herero in 1879 and the New Testament in Kwanjama in 1927, as well as the Bible in Braille for those citizens of South Africa who are blind. One also notes, Mr. Speaker, that the complete Bible—that is to say both the Old and the New Testament—is already available in 242 languages of the world, and that 81 of these languages are of Africa; i.e. African languages constitute one-third of the languages of the world in which the Bible is published. If one looks at the New Testament or sections of the Bible, one finds that these are available in 1,392 languages of the world, 435 of which are of Africa.

I have told you, Mr. Speaker, that the Society became independent in 1965, but that as a result of the problem that it is still a foreign company, that unlike other Bible Societies it has had no Act of its own on which it was based, it has become necessary to pass this legislation. It is a Society which does grand work, and I refer hon. members to clause 3 of the Bill, from which it is very clear that this Society was not founded and does not have as its object to publish any religious writings other than the Bible. It confines itself solely to the distribution of the Bible and the Bible alone. It makes Bibles available at exceptionally low prices, and one is surprised, if one sees the printing and the quality of the publications, that they can in fact be made available at these prices, and one is glad that there are so many private individuals, organizations and churches that are prepared to make large contributions in order to make the Bible available as cheaply as possible. If one considers the fact that last year alone the South African Bible Society made available no fewer than 11 million Bibles and portions of the Scriptures in South Africa alone in 71 languages, one realizes what a major task it is performing, and therefore it is fitting not only that this Parliament should set its seal on the Society by granting it an Act of its own, but also that every one of us should pray for the progress of this organization in order to enable it to perform its particular task to the glory of God.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will support the second reading of this Bill. This society has without doubt done magnificent work over a very long period, and it is most significant with what enthusiasm and what success it is carrying on its work at the present time. I note with considerable interest that it is distributing to-day nearly five times as many Bibles as it was 15 years ago. In South Africa we are distributing more Bibles than in any other country in the world with the exception of the United States of America and Western Germany; we stand third in the world, and I think that is due to the manner in which this society has undertaken its work. In the Western Cape alone its income has increased to and a half times over the last five years, which gives some idea of public support. When you have a society with an overall income of something like R668,000 a year, as it was last year, an increase of over R80,000 over the year before, then it is quite clear that it needs proper legal recognition. It can be asked: Why an Act of Parliament and not registration under the Companies Act? The answer is that overseas it has, I think, been incorporated by an Order-in Council because the provisions of the Companies Act were not suitable for an organization of this kind. Here in South Africa, for similar reasons, it is not something that could be incorporated under the Companies Act because there are no shareholders and its organization is of an entirely different kind. Therefore it seeks legal personality by means of an Act of Parliament.

I feel that this is essentially something which should have our support and have our support particularly in this 150th anniversary of its existence in South Africa. Not only has it been responsible for the Afrikaans Bible in large print—the first Bible, I believe, to have been entirely translated, printed, published and produced here in South Africa—but the film with which the work of the Society is publicized, Living Waters, has received an enthusiastic reception not only throughout South Africa but in other parts of the world. In addition, Sir, it has emphasized the importance of accurate translations, translations not only making the Bible available in their own languages to different peoples and different races all over the world, but also keeping the language of the Bible up to date as the languages of peoples have changes. Therefore we see tremendous attention also in the work of this Society to modern translations of the Bible. I feel that the fact, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, that we can find time to deal. with this matter in this short session is a tribute not only to the Bible Society but to the general approach of people in South Africa to religion and religious institutions and the Word of God as spread through the Bible.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

We opposed the second reading of this Bill and all the objections we raised then are still valid, and after hearing the Minister’s motivation in the Committee Stage on the different clauses, we are more certain than ever that this measure should not appear on the Statute Book.

We gave two reasons for opposing this measure. The one is that it will result in a deprivation of rights acquired by the Bantu in terms of section 10 of the Urban Areas Act, and secondly, that it gives dictatorial powers to the Minister to prohibit Bantu from entering certain employment. During the second-reading debate, the hon. the Deputy Minister took it amiss that we should even suggest that he or his Minister could deprive an African of the rights given to him and his family by Dr. Verwoerd in 1952. He took it amiss that we said that by taking powers under this Bill he could in fact remove them from an urban area. However, in rejecting our amendments which sought to ensure that those rights were protected, the hon. the Deputy Minister quite blatantly admitted that Africans enjoying rights under section 10 would be in no better position than any other African who happened to fall under the category of those who had to be removed from a particular area. If the section 10 Bantu lives in a location, a Bantu village or Bantu hostel which is to be removed at the wish of a local authority and with the approval of the Minister, or against the wish of the local authority on instructions from the Minister, that African could be removed at the request of the local authority or the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development and be given alternative accommodation wherever the Secretary deems fit. His section 10 rights mean absolutely nothing to him, and the Minister cannot deny that, nor does he in fact deny it. This removal need not be related or connected with health reasons, slum clearance or public safety, nor with the availability of suitable alternative accommodation within the area, or even the question of suitable employment in the area. It has nothing to do with the reasons for which the Minister can remove the hostel, the village or the location.

Clause 7 amends the existing law which obliges a local authority to offer an occupant of a dwelling condemned by its health Officer alternative accommodation in its area. It now gives the Minister the right to intervene and he can refuse to allow the removal to a place within the urban area and insist that the African, whether he has acquired rights under section 10 or not, be removed to an area outside the jurisdiction of the local authority. Now these measures are blatant denials of the rights earned over a long period and a betrayal of Dr. Verwoerd’s policy to give the urban African some security in a life beset by so many Jaws and regulations that he can never know from day to day what his fate is to be. I say that Dr. Verwoerd in 1952 gave these rights purposely because of the various regulations which were being introduced in fact to interfere with the rights of the urban African.

Then there is the job reservation clause in this Bill. Of course the Minister denies that it is job reservation, but in fact it has no different effect from job reservation. We say that this is even harsher than the ordinary job reservation because it can be applied at the whim of the Minister without any enquiry or consultation with the parties concerned, namely the employers or the employees. We all know that in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act the Tribunal has first to hold a public enquiry and consult with interested parties before it can in fact recommend that certain races be deprived of doing work done by the Whites. Now this Minister takes power in the widest possible terms to prohibit the employment of Africans in a specified area, in a specified class of employment, in a specified trade or in the service of a specified employer or class of employer. One area can be preferred to another and, worse still, one employer to another employer, and the Minister gave two reasons for this at different times. The one was that it was necessary to prevent work passing from white hands into black hands. That was the reason he gave during the second-reading debate. But I notice that he did not use that reason in the discussions in the Committee Stage. In the Committee Stage he emphasized that the reason was to avoid offence being given by one race to another. In regard to the reason that it was to prevent work passing from white hands to black hands, we pointed out that there were in fact sufficient measures to-day for the Government to control that, and this measure now introduced by this Minister is in fact a vote of no confidence in the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour is empowered, and in fact it is incumbent upon him, to do just what the Deputy Minister wants to do in this Bill. If the Minister of Labour has refused to intervene and he in fact recognizes the fact that there is a shortage of manpower and that it is undesirable to restrict labour in this way, why does the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development not at least take the same precautions that the Minister of Labour takes before applying this Act? Why does not he do what the Minister of Labour is bound to do, namely to have an enquiry where the parties interested can appear and state their case? If the Minister of Labour in fact is not prepared to intervene—and we must accept that that is so, because otherwise this Bill would not be necessary—then we can take it that if the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development prohibits the use of Bantu labour, Coloured or Indian labour can be used in the place of black labour, and the work in fact will not be kept in the hands of the white worker. The first object of the Minister, namely to protect the white workers, will not be achieved, and neither will his second object, namely to avoid offence being given to Whites who object to being served by Bantu or to work alongside Bantu, be achieved. So we must assume that apartheid is not white as distinguished from non-white, but only white as different from Bantu. If it is offensive for Whites to be served by Bantu, surely it must be more offensive for them to serve the Bantu. It all boils down to this; If the provisions of this Bill are applied, we will eventually have to have separate shops for Blacks and Whites.

Now one of the categories mentioned by the Minister of employees to be affected is the typist. Does the Minister realize that there is such a shortage of typists to-day that they can in fact state their own terms; and does he realize that there are more Coloured typists being employed than Bantu typists? The Coloured typists are certainly being employed on a large scale, but I do not think Bantu typists are employed on the same scale as Coloured typists. The Minister went on further and said that the main purpose of this Bill—every time he speaks we get another purpose—is to avoid Bantu and Whites working alongside each other. He said: “Dit sal ook sekerheid by werkgewers bring omdat hulle nou sal weet dat hulle nie langer Bantoes in bepaalde werkkategorieë sal kan plaas nie.” That means that there will be certainty for the employers because they will know that they can no longer use Bantu in certain specified categories of work, but how will the employer know it? He will only know it when he sees a notice in the Gazette, giving a month’s notice. He will not be given an opportunity to appear before a Board or the Minister to state his case or to raise objection. All he will get is one month’s notice that he can no longer employ Bantu. How does that help him if he has already built up his business on the employment of Bantu labour, especially in certain areas? The Minister shakes his head, but that is in fact so. There is no restriction on the Minister. The only thing the Minister has to do now, in terms of the amendment which he himself proposed in the Committee Stage, is to give notice in the Gazette that he intends doing it and that he will consult with the Minister of Labour. But I submit there is no protection for the employer. Now I want to know this from the Minister. Is there to be a general prohibition against Blacks working alongside Whites? If not. why is it objectionable only in certain instances? Either there is a principle that they do not want Whites working alongside Blacks and they do not want Blacks serving Whites at all, or there is no such principle. If that is not so, I say there is no consistency in their policy, if they are going to grant exemptions and allow certain categories of work to be done by Blacks where they can serve Whites or alongside Whites. Are the Ministers of Coloured Affairs and Indian Affairs going to follow the lead and the line taken by this Minister, or are they less willing to apply apartheid than the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development? I say again that if it is undesirable for Bantu to serve Whites or to work alongside Whites, surely then it must also be undesirable for Coloureds and Indians to serve Whites or to work alongside them. If we take this sort of argument to its logical conclusions, what are we going to have in this country? We will have only Whites working alongside Whites, Indians working alongside Indians and only Bantu working alongside Bantu. What will happen to the country? The country will come to a standstill. It is a ridiculous proposition. The hon. the Deputy Minister can say that he is going to give exemptions. This is exactly where the Government’s apartheid policy is falling down. It only works on exemptions and if there are to be exemptions, the principle is not being applied. I say again, if it is wrong for a white man to be served by a black man or wrong for a white woman to work alongside a black typist then the principle of working together must surely be wrong throughout. It cannot just be applicable in certain cases.

It is wrong to have a white minister for the black kaffir.

Yes. If it is wrong for a white person to be served by a black person in a shop, then I ask what the difference is between a white being served by a black in the home.

The hon. member for Benoni said that it was different because there it was a case of the relationship between employer and employee. Why must that make a difference?

Of course it makes a difference.

If it is wrong to work alongside a person of a different group …

The same kind of work.

I am not talking about “gelyke soort werk”. What is wrong with a counter assistant serving a white man?

Next to a white assistant.

That is not the point.

That is the point.

No, that is not the point. That is not what the hon. the Deputy Minister said. He said that it was wrong for a black assistant to serve a white customer. He said that it was wrong for a black barman to serve a white customer. He did not mention working alongside a black barman.

[Inaudible.]

Well, then I hope he will get up and stress the fact that it only applies in cases where counter assistants work alongside white assistants. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will make it clear that if you want to employ black assistants, you may do so provided you employ no white assistants. Is that what the policy is?

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Benoni says that is right.

I did not say that. Do not put words into my mouth.

This just shows how much confusion there is amongst the Nationalists themselves as to what is meant by apartheid. It is no wonder that the verkramptes have broken away. They can see that there is no consistency in the Nationalist Party policy. The Nationalists themselves do not know what is intended.

How is Jack Basson going to keep Sea Point white?

You are talking nonsense.

I want to know how Jack Basson is going to keep Sea Point white.

Order! The hon. member for Benoni is not entitled to make a speech now.

The hon. member for Sea Point never suggested that Coloureds and other races should not be employed in Sea Point.

[Inaudible.]

And it does not help the hon. member for Houghton getting all thrilled at the interjections and the help she is getting from ‘the Nationalists. It is not going to help them to win the seat. They are going to lose it by a bigger majority than ever, although the Nationalists and the Progressives are combining together to try and win the seat from the United Party. They simply will not succeed. It is certainly very interesting, to see the new “bondgenote” we have in this House. This measure, Sir, can only result in race hostility.

The hon. the Deputy Minister took the usual line that the Nationalists take when they realize that the measure being introduced will do us harm abroad and in the country itself. What did the hon. the Deputy Minister do? He attacked us for discussing the matter. He accused us of arousing race feelings and hostility because we dare to discuss this matter. If he and his Government did not bring measures of this nature before the House we would not have to criticize them. It would not have been necessary for the outside world to view us as critically as it does. We will continue to criticize the Government if we think what it is doing is wrong. If they do not like this type of criticism and think it is harmful to us abroad and in the country, the Government should stop bringing measures of this nature.

Have you read what was written about this Bill?

Why then bring this Bill? You brought up the Bill.

Do you think they only read the Bill when we discuss it?

It is not necessary for the United Party to tell the world at large what this Government is doing. Their newspapers have their correspondents. The embassies have their Officers here.

And their diplomats.

Yes, there are the diplomats too. They know what is happening. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister really think that if there was no opposition in this country that the outside world would not know what was happening here? Does he honestly believe that? How does he know what is happening in Russia where criticism is not allowed? How does he know what is happening in any country behind the iron curtain?

I will deal with that in my reply.

I am very glad to heat that. This is no more than a desperate effort shortly before the election trying to rally the Nationalist Party together again. Had the verkramptes not broken away this Bill would have been dropped.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member for Brakpan is the one most affected. That is why he is shouting like this. This measure was introduced purely for political reasons. It is going to be placed on the Statute Book and I venture to suggest now that that Minister will not have the courage to apply it. If he does he will know what it will mean to the country. If the hon. the Minister applies the provisions of this Bill he can bring the country’s economy to a standstill. Therefore, we intend voting against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, towards the end the hon. member for Transkei obtained the assistance of the entire Opposition in an endeavour to complete his speech. It is clear that the hon. member, as well as other members of the Opposition, have never understood this Bill. The hon. member’s speech is, then, also the clearest proof that all of them have failed to see the objects of this legislation. This morning the hon. member once more adopted the old Opposition custom of saying that this legislation would grant the hon. the Minister dictatorial powers. We have known the Opposition for years. If they dislike something that does not exactly suit their purpose, they claim that the Minister wants to usurp dictatorial or extraordinary powers for himself. This is an expression we hear whenever they oppose certain legislation. The hon. member referred to the Bill as a measure that merely wanted to bring about apartheid between Whites and Blacks, and he asked what the position of Coloureds and Indians would be. Hon. members opposite apparently do not yet know that this hon. Deputy Minister deals with Bantu, affairs. Hon. members must therefore simply curb their curiosity a little and wait to see what the position in connection with the other races will be. Then the hon. member also said that it was as a result of verkrampte pressure, exercised upon the Government, that this measure was now being implemented. Sir, surely that hon. member is fast asleep if that is what he is claiming, because he ought to know that this measure was introduced last year and that certain developments had then not taken place yet.

Throughout the Second Reading and the Committee Stage the Opposition raised the parrot-cry, i.e. that the Bantu would be deprived of his work as a result of this legislation, and that, in terms of section 10 of the Urban Areas Act of 1945. there would be no protection for him. The hon. member said so again this morning. This was the argument throughout. Despite the repetitions and the assurances of the Deputy Minister, the Opposition still hammers away at this same point. If this Opposition were open to any ideas they would have reconciled themselves and have accepted this positive measure.

The hon. member said that the Opposition was also going to oppose this measure during the Third Reading. We accept that in many cases, and here as well, the Opposition is prompted by various bodies about when they should oppose a measure and when they should not. Thus they were, for example, prompted by the English language Press which was conjuring up spectres last year, and drawing far-fetched conclusions in connection with this legislation. Apart from the English language Press I shall also refer to certain other bodies. I am referring here to the South African Institute of Race Relations and the South African Council of Churches. Recently, from the Religious Societies of Friends, a circular reached us which also prescribed to the Opposition in connection with this measure, or at least promised them support. I shall come back to this in a moment and quote a few relevant pieces.

Clause 11 of this Bill is the clause about which the hon. member had a great deal to say in respect of work categories. This legislation proposes to prohibit white employers from employing Bantu in certain work spheres or categories existing in white sectors. Now the hon. member generalizes his arguments against this measure. There are, indeed, certain work categories affected by this legislation. This Bill also makes provision for the service contracts of Bantu already employed in such categories to be cancelled or annulled, and for sufficient time to be given to replace the Bantu. The employment of Bantu in the white work spheres or categories, conventionally and traditionally set apart for Whites, has been going on right before our eyes in recent years. There are, for example, the occupations referred to time and again in these debates. There are occupations such as those of shop clerk, counter clerk, typist, switchboard operator and even administrative clerk that are held by Bantu in white sectors. In my constituency a number of years ago there was even a case of a Bantu acting as an agent for a certain white person selling houses in a specific area. At the end of each month that Bantu went and collected the rent from Whites. This happened only a few years ago. As a result of this legislation such a thing cannot take place again. Fortunately that matter was investigated and an end made to the anomaly. As I have said, this situation, where Bantu are employed in white work spheres, developed right before our eyes, and has already begun to take on serious proportions. It is creating dissatisfaction and friction. The Government is now compelled to take these steps, as embodied in this Bill, to restrict these abuses that are occurring, before serious clashes and friction develop, which could seriously damage or endanger the existing labour peace which we are so happy about. Each of us is aware of the fact that the cheap labour of the Bantu lays the foundation for the greater employment of non-Whites, particularly Bantu, in jobs traditionally and conventionally held by Whites. In the circular of the South African Council of Churches an allegation was made which I should like to quote. I know that hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Houghton will, of course, agree wholeheartedly with it. The following statement was made—

Sir, what a perverse view of the situation this is! Since when has the work of counter clerks, etc., in white work spheres, been an “employment opportunity” or a “work opportunity” for any non-Whites, particularly for a Bantu? These occupations in white work spheres, where Whites serve and are served, have always traditionally been occupations for Whites. It has always been a part of the “South African way of life”. These are words the Opposition is also fond of using, embodying an idea supposedly regarded with deference by the Opposition. Must what this legislation now wants to implement suddenly be regarded as a small apartheid? One can expect such pleas from the South African Council of Churches. This is, among others, a body which would want to remove every trace of apartheid from our Statute Book, if given the opportunity. In fact, this is also the standpoint of some members of the Opposition.

The argument that is raised, about there being insufficient white employees available to fill vacancies, does not sound convincing at all. If there is, in fact, a shortage of white employees in the categories I have just mentioned, it is an artificial or a fabricated shortage. Certain white employers must be blamed, to a large extent, for such a situation, because the wages they attach to those various posts are too low. The wage structure is still inadequate, and it is impossible for the white employee to work for those low wages. In these categories Bantu workers are very necessary in the homelands, where they can do this kind of work for their own people. One would expect serious objections and severe opposition to this legislation in certain business and industrial circles, particularly in respect of clause 11. These employers are only disposed towards obtaining cheap labour and making greater profits. These employers, who do not freely want to co-operate now in maintaining our traditional labour pattern, must not subsequently complain because this legislation is now being introduced and will be strictly implemented at a later stage. The United Party and the Progressive Party want to throw open all work spheres. They advocate “labour on the best market”. They are integration parties, because they want to create more employment opportunities for the Bantu in the white areas. They want to create a greater incentive in order to promote the policy of integration. After all, they are actually integration parties. The U.P. thinks it will solve the race problem by creating a single South Africa with a single integrated community. This Bill, particularly clause 11, specifically wants to prevent this. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Deputy Minister rightly said that this was a precautionary measure against Black-White integration. The traditional work categories for Whites are also delimited by this Bill. This legislation is a logical consequence of the National Party’s policy of separate development.

The various clauses of the Bill were discussed, particularly clause 8, according to which, with the approval of the Minister, the profits on Bantu beer could be applied in any sphere in the Bantu homelands for development there. I should like to state that this is a very welcome measure, because in this way it creates the opportunity for still greater ties between the Bantu of the urban and metropolitan white areas and his homeland, since he contributes to certain aspects of development there. We should see this homeland development as the task, not only of the Minister, one department and one city council, but of a nation. It is a national task. However, in the process the Bantu must be helped. Hon. members will say that the Bantu beer profits that can be ploughed into the homelands in that way are only drops in the ocean. Let us acknowledge that they are drops in the ocean, but at least they are large drops, particularly because the Bantu can also contribute in this indirect way. I believe that in time this money could also perhaps be applied to educational matters in the Bantu homelands. I am thinking of one aspect, that of Bantu hostels. There are many Bantu in the urban areas who would like to send their children to the Bantu homelands to be educated, because those Bantu would like to retain ethnic ties with the homelands. In this respect I believe that this legislation is going to serve a very good purpose.

I want to conclude by saying that the Government is directing its attention to economic development in the homelands, but at the same time it is also directing its attention to the spiritual, cultural and intellectual development and the upliftment of those Bantu, because this is as necessary as economic development. I see that in this legislation the opportunity is also being created for the realization of that part of the Bantu’s development in the homelands. It is not so much a question of the place where the Bantu is born or where he lives, as it is a question of his origins. Even though a Bantu lives in an urban Bantu area, this Bill specifically affords him even more opportunities for ties with his homeland, or for becoming spiritually and politically rooted in his homeland.

Mr. Speaker, it would not surprise the hon. members for Koedoespoort to hear that I disagree with practically everything that he has said. In the first place I want to tell the hon. member that he does not know what he is talking about when he talks about these traditional patterns of labour in South Africa as if they were a continuing and unchanging process. If he would only cast his mind back over the South Africa of the past 20 years, he might see that there have been enormous changes in the so-called traditional patterns of labour in South Africa. Jobs which 20 years ago were never done by Africans or other non-Whites, for instance, are now being done by them in every possible field. In every field of semi-skilled work in industry there are non-Whites working at machines. They have come into the machine-operative jobs because there are no Whites to do those jobs and because the Whites have graduated to the skilled jobs at higher wage rates. So he is absolutely wrong about that. 20 years ago there were no Africans driving heavy lorries but to-day that is a job performed almost entirely by Africans and other non-Whites. 20 years ago there was no such thing as a non-White postman but to-day there appears to be no stigma attached to receiving one’s letters or telegrams from a non-white hand. Housewives do not faint dead away when a non-White postman comes to the door. The hon. member talked about the tragic circumstance of a non-white agent collecting rents from Whites as if something really horrifying had happened. I tell him that in 10 years’ time that will probably be the normal practice in South Africa, otherwise there will be nobody to collect rents. In Johannesburg there is at present a major row about the bus drivers. It took some considerable time before the Johannesburg municipality plucked up sufficient courage to employ African drivers on the African buses. There were no white people to drive those buses and eventually after great goings-on between the Government and the Transport Workers’ Union and the City Council which had a real cadenza over the political implications of this, African bus drivers were employed to drive the black buses.

That has nothing to do with this Bill.

It has everything to do with this Bill and I will tell the hon. the Deputy Minister why in a moment. We now have the same situation in regard to white buses. There are not enough white bus drivers and in Johannesburg one bus service after the other is being cancelled to the intense indignation and annoyance of white passengers who cannot get to work on time, who cannot get home from work and who find themselves being gravely inconvenienced. The solution that has been suggested is that Coloured bus drivers be employed to drive the white buses. There is a tremendous fight going on about this because, according to the hon. member for Koedoespoort, it is tradition that white bus drivers should drive buses carrying white passengers. What are we going to do when there are not any white bus drivers coming forward to provide the essential service of transport, not only for the lucky people of the northern suburbs of Johannesburg, but also for the southern, eastern and western suburbs where thousands upon thousands of Nationalist supporters live. Funnily enough, they need to get to work just as the other people do. Mr. Speaker, do you know what is going to happen eventually? They are going to accept the untraditional pattern of being driven into town by Coloured and eventually black bus drivers. Are the heavens going to fall? Is white civilization going to crash in South Africa? I suggest that it is not going to crash because these changes are taking place all the time. There is no such thing as a static economy. The economy is dynamic. Fortunately for all of us, it is dynamic. It is not at the cost of efficient Whites that these changes are taking place. The efficient white man always does find a job and it is usually at a better wage rate. The hon. member for Koedoespoort said that the reason why these changes were taking place in these traditional categories was that the wages were too low and that greedy businessmen were trying to make greater profits. There is an easy solution to this. Let us have wages fixed at proper rates, in other words at the rate that the job should carry. It should have nothing to do with colour and not depend upon whether the job is done by a white man, a black man or a Coloured man, but merely upon what the job is worth. Having fixed wages at that rate, our economy will function like that of any normal country.

We will never agree on that point.

Order! The hon. member for Koedoespoort has had a chance to make his speech.

Of course we will hever agree on that. Mr. Speaker, that hon. member knows nothing about economics. I am not sure what he does know something about but he knows nothing about economics. That much I can tell him. I want to point out to him that as history has shown us and as experience has shown us, economic forces are stronger than political taboos. They are even stronger than Nationalist bigotry, believe it or not, which is just as well for this country or it would not have advanced the way it has advanced over the past 20 or 30 years.

Let me say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he has not given us one solitary good reason for putting this measure on the Statute Book. He has given us a great number of bad reasons and all of them have to do with narrow-minded viewpoints. He and his party are being driven by the impetus of what has happened to their own party with the Herstigte Party. It is no good saying it is nonsense, because it is not. It is perfectly true that this Bill was introduced last year before the advent of these new developments, but hon. members will admit that this split in the party did not take place overnight. There were already considerable mumblings and bumblings between verkramptes and the super-verkramptes the whole of the last session. There are no verligte Nationalists, as I said a year or two ago, and I have certainly not changed my mind since then. There is no such animal as a verligte Nationalist.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

I am trying to give the hon. the Deputy Minister the reasons for the introduction of this Bill. He has given us no good reasons. The reason is that the Government is so perturbed about what is happening in its own ranks, that it has to put up this façade of extreme reactionaryism. The Nationalist congresses of last year were permeated by the influence of the super-verkramptes and led to the resolutions about white shop girls in Brakpan having to work behind counters with Coloured or African shop girls and the terrible consternation of the hon. member for Benoni. He still has not indicated to me why these white girls did not leave to find employment, probably at better wages, just around the corner.

Because it is a white City Council.

The white City Council is not locking them up. The white City Council is not locking up those two white typists who had this traumatic experience of sharing a room with a black man or woman. The hon. member is insisting on pushing his narrow-minded views down the throats of every citizen in this country. But this does not make it right.

This is National Party policy.

I am not denying that he has the power to do this. But I want to point out to the hon. member that those two white girls were there of their own volition and that they could have left any time they did not like it. The answer is that they did not leave because they did not care. They do not share the hon. member for Benoni’s bigoted views. That is the real truth of the matter. They have probably found that the African clerk with whom they are working is a very polite person. It therefore does not worry them in the slightest. They most probably find this person very efficient.

As I have mentioned before, the hon. the Deputy Minister is putting a measure on the Statute Book to the detriment of the people whose interests he should be looking after. African advancement is what has caused this Bill. African advancement in certain fields of work has been the major cause of this Bill. Instead of the hon. the Deputy Minister being glad that the people under his care have by efficiency and conscientious work managed to advance into categories where they will be earning a better living, all he does is to come along and put a damper on their hopes of advancement. I say it is a shame that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration should be responsible for a Bill of this kind. He should take pride in the fact that the people under his care are advancing. He has no business to stop their advancement by a legislative barrier which has absolutely no connection whatsoever with efficiency or anything else. He and not a single other member has been able to provide a single example of racial friction as a result of these very few cases so far of the incursion of Africans into these fields of labour. I challenge hon. members to produce one single example. The feeble reply will be that they want to prevent racial friction. What nonsense! There is no sign of racial friction in any of the jobs taken over by Africans.

I will give examples.

I suppose that housewives objected to handing over their rents to African agents. They probably object to handing it over to white agents as well. Nobody likes to pay rent. It is as simple as that.

I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that white people in this country have every advantage. They receive assistance from the Government in every single field. They receive generous maintenance allowances which Africans do not get. They undergo free and compulsory education which Africans certainly do not get. They also get very generous vocational training opportunities. I am all for that, but I do not like it being limited on a racial basis. White people get all the assistance possible. They also have the assistance of the vast customary colour bar, which the United Party is pledged to maintain. They are pledged to maintain the great barrier to the advancement of non-Whites to semi-skilled and skilled jobs. How they correlate that with their policy of complete utilization of all our resources, while saying they are going to maintain the customary colour bar, is beyond me. I leave it to them to explain on their party platforms if they can. Of course, they will not bother to explain that on their country platforms, because all one will hear on the platteland is the maintenance of the customary colour bar. It is only when they talk in the Parktowns, Houghtons and Sea Points that they talk of the full utilization of labour. I want to leave the United Party to one side. Let them try and reconcile their consciences with this utterly irreconcilable policy of the maintenance of the customary colour bar, which is the greatest stumbling block to the best use of manpower and not job reservation, and the full utilization of labour. Job reservation applies to only 2 per cent of the whole labour force. I say again that white people have all the advantages, namely free and compulsory education, good vocational training as well as the customary colour bar. No efficient white person needs the protection of legislative barriers to African advancement. If there are so many hundreds of thousands of inefficient white people I will be very surprised, because I doubt whether South Africa could have advanced to the degree of development which she has if she had this burden of inefficient white people who are unable to stand on their own two feet in competition with non-white people who start at such an enormous disadvantage from the beginning. I think therefore that it is flagrant nonsense to suggest that white people require further protection. As I have said, not one single good example was advanced by any member in this connection.

I made it very clear that this Bill has nothing to do with white protection. I have said so very often.

The hon. the Deputy Minister uses words which mean nothing. If this has nothing to do with white protection why is he taking the powers of clause 11?

I have explained why and I will explain again.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has explained that it is to get rid of five categories of labour where Africans have come into the field of traditional so-called white work.

This Bill is to stop labour integration.

It is exactly the same as saying that he wants to protect white labour, because he would not object to labour integration if it were not affecting the white workers concerned.

It is the white way of life.

That hon. member lives in, shall I say, this isolated island, which is absolutely divorced from real life outside. He should step out of this Chamber and walk down Adderley Street and he will see what there is of the white way of life in South Africa. It does not exist. The integrated way of life in South Africa can be seen in every street, in every shop, every Office, every factory, every mine and on every farm. We have a multi-racial way of life in South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member that if by some chance every African took the advice offered to them by hon. members there and went streaming back to the homelands out of every Office, every home, every factory, every gold mine and every farm, this Government would call out the Army to stop them. That is what they would do. They would do it, because they know that South Africa would be paralysed to-morrow. There is no such thing as a white way of life in South Africa. We are all here working and living together, whether we like it or not. Hon. members are going to have to change their attitudes. It really should not be so painful. If they look back on what has happened in this country over the last 20 years, they will see that many things have changed which they or their fathers would not have dreamed about 20 years ago. In 20 years time their own children will have accepted things which they to-day cannot dream will happen in this country. Inevitably the ineluctable pressures of economic forces are going to make hon. members opposite change their minds. I leave them with the thought that they need not worry because it is not going to be too painful. In the end they may even find it very profitable to themselves. I want to end tip with one final word, to point out once more to the hon. the Deputy Minister that it is one thing to pass laws in this Parliament, and another thing to implement them.

What do you imply?

I am implying that the Deputy Minister does not see the administrative difficulties involved. I am not implying it; I am saying it outright. I know what this is going to involve. The hon. the Deputy Minister has really quite an engaging way of saying things. He says: “But I am just doing this. That is all. It is nothing at all. It is simply cancelling a contract. That is all”, he says. He is simply going to do it in five categories. As I pointed out, there were three categories originally, last year when the Bill was being discussed at the Second Reading. Now it has become five categories. He has added telephonists and barmaids to the three original categories, which were counter hands …

Barmaids.

… clerks and typists. I do my homework much better than the hon. member for Koedoespoort. He just relies on his racialistic tendencies. I study the Bill. That is the difference between us. At any rate, the Deputy Minister has now added two more categories. It is anybody’s bet that when we come back to this House later this year and again next year, he will have thought of another five categories where he has to prevent racial friction.

But you said just a moment ago that we would not implement it. Now you are arguing in a different way.

Oh, no. I say that he will try and implement it. I have never had any doubt that they are going to try to implement it. They may not be able to do it, but in every case where they do implement it, they are going to cause a great deal of resentment from the Africans concerned. Because they are doing a good job, the Deputy Minister is kicking them out of that job. That is what it amounts to. Why does he think these people do not react as normal human beings? I wonder how hon. members would react if they were kicked out of their jobs while they were doing a good job? Of course, there is no danger of that. They are, however, going to be kicked out of their jobs quite soon for another reason. I tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that this call-in card system is going to cause anguish to Africans who do not understand this system. They are going to find themselves tied up in the homelands with headmen and other tribal people who do not understand how to operate the system. They are going to lose their jobs because of the inability of these people to control this vast system. I tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that this sending people back to rehabilitation centres which do not exist yet and leaving it to the homelands to decide what sort of job these people have to do when they are in detention, is without doubt the most impractical thing I have ever heard of. He has no idea of the amount of policing or anything else that any kind of system like this requires.

I said it would be left to the Bantu.

Just like that! It will be left to the Bantu.

What is wrong with that? Tell us.

I will tell the hon. the Deputy Minister what is wrong with it. What is going to happen, is that thousands of Africans are going to be sent back, either by the Bantu Commissioner’s courts or by the aid centres when they start functioning. Who is going to cope with them? They have to be in detention. Where are they going to be held?

If they decide that detention is unnecessary, they can so decide.

What I want to know, is how do they get work? What do they do with themselves? Does he honestly think he is going to be able to keep them in the homelands? They are going to be back in the towns the next week. Does he not realize that? There is nothing for them to do in the homelands. There is no work for them. So they are going to come back. It is a huge process of arrest, sending them back, and then they are in again. It is quite unworkable. This is why I did not blame the Police when the terrible tragedy of the van deaths was being discussed. I blame the system for it. Now the hon. member for Pinelands says the United Party is going to maintain influx control. What is he going to do with all the thousands of workless Africans in the reserves? Does he think simply by the United Party saying: “We shall maintain influx control,” it is going to be any easier for his party, if it comes into power, than it has proved to be for the Nationalist Government? They must all also deal with economic forces.

When did you change your mind about influx control?

I always disliked influx control. That is one of the reasons why I left the United Party. But when I became a member of the United Party they had a very elastic Native policy.

No.

I can show the hon. member the pamphlets. It certainly did not include white leadership without justice. There was always talk about “with justice” when I was a member of the United Party. That is one of the changes that has come about in the policy of the United Party since I left them. I cannot go into all the changes which have come about since I left. There was such a thing as a common roll for the Coloured people. The United Party is now a very different party from the one which I joined. But I am telling the hon. the Deputy Minister this will not be workable. The actual policing is not possible because of the tremendous pressure of poverty in the reserves. It is true that a number of people come into the towns because they like the bright lights and the gay city life. There is no doubt about that. But the vast majority of people come into the towns for one reason and one reason only. That is for the employment opportunities that the industrial areas of South Africa offer. That will continue no matter what the United Party does about influx control. They will have the same difficulties. Those same workless people will be sent back to the reserves. The same limited number of people will be allowed to keep their families with them. This whole thing is just unworkable. It is not handled in the light of the basic economic problem that we have to face. The only way in which we can really do this is by facing up to the fact that South Africa is basically an industrial country. We have to industrialize and that means urbanization. It also means we will have to make provision for housing for people on a stabilized family basis. It means that we will have to remove the restrictions on employment opportunities. It means that we will have to improve conditions in the rural areas as far as is possible. However, I do not for a moment believe that the reserves can ever absorb even their natural increase in population. The paper that was delivered by Dr. Riekert recently proves that beyond doubt. The reserves will never be able to cope even with their natural increase in population.

No, he proved exactly the opposite.

No, he did not. He only takes cognizance of about 46 per cent of the African population. The rest he certainly does not provide for in the reserves. He does not even tell us what will happen to the natural increase in the towns. Certainly he does not envisage their going back to the reserves and being supported there. So this is the difficulty that we have to face, if it is a difficulty. If it is treated as an economic and not a racial problem the whole matter of course is different. Then one can see what can be done about improving circumstances on the white farms, where farmers should be made to pay far better cash wages so as to make conditions attractive on the farms for their workers. They should not be allowed to pay these low cash wages that they pay because they have this vast tied-up reservoir of labour that they can rely on. We can improve conditions as best as we can in the so-called rural areas of the reserves. For the rest it is an industrializing society. As I have said before, there is no reason that South Africa, like any other industrializing society, should not be able to cope with the movement of people from the rural areas to the urban areas. I can tell the hon. the Minister that this law will cause racial friction. It will not prevent racial friction. It is basically an unfair law. It will therefore be a cause of racial friction. He is not able just to push people back like chattels as he thinks he can do under other sections in this Act. He is not taking the necessary measures to accommodate and provide employment for those people. Therefore I say that this law, like so many other laws passed by the Government over the last 20 years which are designed to prevent economic integration, is destined to failure.

Mr. Speaker, before I devote a little attention to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I want to say, as a representative of an area where large problems exist in respect of this matter, problems that will be corrected by this legislation, that it is really a pleasure for me to be able to say to this House that if there is one member who is really pleased that such progress has been made with this legislation it is the member for Harrismith. We have a problem there, and the hon. member who spoke here against the legislation, as well as the hon. Opposition, does not have the vaguest idea of the problems that can develop if a Minister, or a Government, does not have certain powers at his disposal which enable him to take certain steps. When hon. members now plead here for the retention of the old system, are they not aware of the fact that they are in reality pleading for a certain situation to flourish, a situation which is not beneficial to, and to the advantage of, the Bantu, or the Whites in that area.

Before I come back to the legislation, I want to correct a few references of the hon. member for Houghton. At the end of her speech she said: “Farmers must be made to pay far better wages.” I want to tell the hon. member that she displayed a great deal of ignorance in her speech, but this statement of hers can definitely be refuted because, if other factors are taken into consideration the wages are not so meagre at all. If one takes the cash wage into consideration, plus the privileges such as free grazing, food, clothing, free dwellings, free firewood and free water which sometimes cost the farmer quite a bit of capital, then I must say that the hon. member is really living in a state of the greatest ignorance.

I can understand this very well, and hon. members must allow me to give my own view, i.e. that that hon. member and her kindred spirits cannot actually infuse themselves into our “way of life”, to which she referred a moment ago. They cannot even assimilate with our Whites; how can they understand what the actual relationship must be among ourselves, who want apartheid, but who are also aware of our relationship with the non-Whites? I can understand why the hon. member thinks so, because she is extremely ignorant of the facts. I want to refer to a few of the aspects she mentioned here. She said that this legislation was the result of the pressure put on the National Party as a result of the establishment of the Herstigte Nasionale Party. This is, of course, absolute nonsense, because this legislation was already being prepared when they were still voting for motions of confidence in the National Party. This legislation can therefore not possibly be the result of those circumstances.

Those hon. members were here in the House when we were conducting the second-reading debate about this legislation. No one had anything to say against the legislation at that stage, either here or outside. From this the hon. member can see that this legislation is not before the House as a result of pressure on the Government. I should like to repeat this sentence in English, as follows: “There was no pressure.” Since I may not change over from one language to another I shall continue in the language in which I began my speech.

The hon. member spoke of racial friction. But if conditions flourish as they do in certain of our residential areas, including Harrismith, this offers a good reason for the development of racial friction. This legislation provides for the empowering of the hon. the Minister to act in the case of a deproclaimed area, so that the inhabitants of the area can be removed to places which would be best for them. If this cannot happen racial friction will develop. There are numerous instances of employers refusing to employ people living in a deproclaimed area. We are aware of the fact that lawyers who are of the same mind as that hon. member have incited the Bantu in such areas, and that they want to handle the cases of the Bantu against the State, so that the Bantu could inhabit certain areas unlawfully, which cannot be to their advantage. That hon. member is under the impression that her pleas are to the advantage of the Bantu, but in this case, in opposing this legislation she is specifically arguing against the interests of those Bantu. She is arguing against their interests, because Bantu who are resettled in better residential areas where schools, churches, sports fields and other facilities are provided, are better off than those living in die unhealthy areas that have been condemned by health inspectors. The hon. member may indeed note that such residential areas are condemned by a health inspector and not by a Minister of the Government. The hon. member would do well to investigate the history of certain places and then she would not waste the time of this House.

I welcome this legislation and I am glad that, after our representations, the hon. the Minister prepared this legislation for us over quite a period of time, and that we can now discuss it in its final stage. The hon. member for Transkei also made a few statements. He referred, inter alia, to the fact that Bantu could be removed from a certain area without the necessity of consultations with the employee or employer.

Not “removed”.

The hon. member spoke of the removal of the Bantu from that area to another area without consultation.

Read my Hansard. You did not understand what I said.

The hon. member need not get so anxious now. It could in fact happen. When it is in the interests of the group living in that specific place or of those specific employees, the removal could take place, but it is also possible that the employer could be given the opportunity, by way of a permit, of employing those individuals for a further period. The hon. member’s allegation, to the effect that the employee could then not be employed again by his employer, merely because he is being removed from that area, is untrue. It is not so; that hon. member tried to give the House a wrong impression, but I think there are other members here who know as much about this as the hon. member thinks he does.

Read what I said.

In addition the hon. me-ber said “It is an offence …”

I did not say “It is an offence”. I said “If it is offensive”.

Very well, I shall take the hon. member’s word for that. But the fact remains that it is not detrimental to or humiliating for the Bantu to work for a white person. This has been our labour pattern throughout the country for many years. Our policy is one of apartheid, and I want to put this question to the Opposition: Is it not better for a good bus driver to drive a bus transporting members of his own race, and then preferably in his own homeland? As long as he sells his labour here in a white area he may surely do so; it is already being done. Is it not better for those people to transport members of their own race so that no racial friction can develop? Hon. members of the United Party are definitely against any form of apartheid. They are definitely in favour of integration in every field and sphere. This legislation is an instrument in the hands of the hon. the Minister for the making of sound and beneficial arrangements for all our race groups in this country.

You know that that is not true.

Order! Did the hon. member say that the hon. member for Harrismith knows that what be is saying is not true?

Yes.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

No, Sir, I cannot withdraw it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the statement that the hon. member for Harrismith knows that he is telling an untruth.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Through the years it has been proved time and again by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, and by the National Government, that when removals of Bantu take place, as is now being made possible in terms of this Bill, proper housing accommodation is first made available for them. In the second place, it has been proved time and again that Bantu are not dismissed from service and taken to areas where insufficient employment opportunities exist for them. Through the years we have time and again stated this as our policy and it has been proved repeatedly when removals of Bantu took place. We had the privilege last year of visiting the areas to which Bantu were removed and to inspect the facilities there. It was wonderful to see the facilities provided for them there. Those of us who could speak their language chatted to them. If hon. members on that side of the House could speak to the Bantu in their own language they would find out how happy they are. Here, in their ignorance of the Bantu and their circumstances, those hon. members, who opposed us in every sphere and in respect of every Bill piloted through this House, showed the Bantu a great disservice and thereby created a situation here which could give rise to greater racial friction, and when racial friction develops the United Party’s policy of race federation will simply not be practicable.

Sir, in conclusion I should like to say that the farmers of South Africa welcome this Bill. During the recess I had the privilege of visiting numerous farmers’ associations. They were eagerly looking forward to this Bill and asked when it would come into operation. The United Party would so very much like to charge the National Party …

May I ask the hon. member to explain how this Bill affects tile farmers?

Study the Bill, clause 3.

This Bill has to do with labour arrangements and the removal of Bantu, not only with residential areas.

How does this affect Harrismith farmers?

I can tell you, Sir, that the farmers in the rural areas welcome this Bill because they are concerned about one thing, i.e. that for years now we have had a surplus of Bantu labour in certain areas of our country. Do you know, Sir, under what contracts Bantu were employed. They were employed under four and six month contracts, and after this period has lapsed they have to go and work outside. This Bill makes it possible for the committees and boards to ensure that the farmers have sufficient labour without having to be saddled with a surplus of Bantu labour on their farms. Sir, we can only realize our ideal if we can furnish every employer with sufficient labour, without having layabouts everywhere in the rural and urban residential areas. This is the only way to ensure proper labour arrangements.

Sir, in conclusion I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that the local authority of my town and the farmers in my constituency are all glad to know that this legislation is now going to be placed on the Statute Book and is going to be implemented. They take no notice of this nonsense we are getting from the United Party and the Progressive Party, because there the Bantu are treated like human beings and they are happy. But we have a duty and a task to perform and therefore I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister most sincerely for this Bill.

The hon. member for Harrismith commenced his speech by saying that there were a large number of problems which were being solved by this measure and that he would proceed to explain them, but he failed entirely to substantiate that initial claim. Indeed, this particular Bill has singularly little application to farm labour.

Sir, I want to say that in my opinion the recent period, as indeed previous periods, has been an extremely bad time for the Government’s race relations policy in general and its Native policy in particular. In the course of this single year we have seen several new nails in the coffin of the Government’s race relations policy. We have had the fact revealed that the estimate of numbers upon which the late Dr. Verwoerd worked, was out by something between 16 million and 24 million. He thought that there would be 19 million Natives at the end of the century; it now appears that there will be between 35 million and 40 million. We have seen a further failure on the part of an African state to manage its own affairs. We know that there has not been a single change of Government in an African state since the beginning of time which has occurred peacefully and constitutionally, and we have seen this process repeated again this year.

But, Sir, this Bill itself provides the clearest proof that in its own field Government policy is failing again. And when I say “in its own field” I speak of the field which is covered by the provisions of this Bill, as I shall attempt to substantiate. It is quite clear that this Bill contains extremely drastic measures to try to bolster up several aspects of their policy which are failing. Their initial policy was to draw the native peoples out of the urban areas by means of job opportunities in the reserves. This was the original “verligte” policy, which was part of the policy of “groot apartheid”. That, of course, has completely failed. What did we find? People were being endorsed out but that did not prove sufficient to halt the flow of Bantu into the urban areas. And now we have a measure which goes to the length of saying that Bantu, after being taken out of the urban areas, must be detained where they are and compelled to work there. This indicates the growing extent to which the Government is forced to resort to more and more extreme measures. But what is so interesting, Sir, is that for the success of this new measure the Government needs the co-operation of the Bantu authorities. I say that they need the co-operation of the Bantu authorities because the hon. the Deputy Minister said that it was these authorities who would supervise and control the places or institutions where the natives are to be kept and put to work after they have been endorsed out of the urban areas. He has made it quite clear that it is the Bantu authorities that are going to be asked to perform this task. Sir, what a doomed policy this is! We know that there is not a single Bantu authority that has as yet consented to attempt to carry out this policy. The Deputy Minister was unable to cite one Bantu authority that is prepared to accept this policy. Indeed, we know from the clear utterances of leaders in those authorities, certainly in the Transkei, that they are completely opposed to the policy of endorsing out their people. They are certainly not prepared to lend themselves to the policy of detaining their people in their own over-crowded reserves. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. Whip over there fidgets uncomfortably, but this is a well-known fact. The Bantu authorities are completely opposed to the policy that they should accept in their own reserves people endorsed out of the urban areas. What they demand is that employment opportunities should be created there, and only then will they be prepared to consider the question of accepting back in the reserves people endorsed out of the urban areas. Sir, we have the incredible position that the Government solemnly comes to this Parliament to place on the Statute Book a provision which is absolute anathema to the very authorities who are being asked to ensure that this policy works. If you want a sure prescription for failure of this particular policy, then you have it in this case.

Sir, take the second aspect, clause 11, which allows the arbitrary denial of native labour to employers.

You are busy winning the election in Sea Point for Colin Eglin.

The hon. member says that I am helping Mr. Eglin to win the seat in Sea Point. He will have as much difficulty in winning that seat this time as he had in 1966, if not more.

More difficulty.

Sir, I want to say that the very fact that the Government comes with clause 11 provides the clearest possible evidence once again of the failure of Government policy. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in one of his speeches during the Committee Stage, indicated that this was designed to close cracks which were developing in the labour pattern. I think his words were that there were cracks developing in the labour pattern of the Nationalist Party. Of course there are. It is perfectly true that in the old days these jobs were not done by Bantu. In other words, notwithstanding all the apartheid policy we have had for 20 years, in fact we are finding that because there are no other people to these jobs in these various categories which he enumerated, the Bantu are being absorbed in them. Obviously, therefore, we are becoming more and more dependent, if one may use that word, upon their labour than has ever been the case, notwithstanding the attempts of the Government over all these years. Even in these five new categories in which he is now seeking power to prevent Natives from being employed, the Native people have been seeking employment, and now they are to be stopped by means of this provision. That quite clearly shows that they have been moving into further categories of work and obviously their numbers are increasing, both in the categories they have been in and in these new categories. So, I say, you have the clearest evidence in this provision that the Government knows that its own policy is failing. And let it of course not be inferred from what I have said that the Minister has power only to prevent employment in these five categories; the field is entirely open to him to prevent people from accepting employment and there is no limit upon it. The Minister justifies this by saying that it is preventing “arbeidsintegrasie”. Will he tell this House whether he intends to prevent Coloured people from taking these positions when they are surrendered by the Native people now in them? I ask the hon. the Minister before he leaves this House to make sure to tell us in his reply whether he is going to permit Coloureds and Indians to accept these jobs from which he says he is banning the Natives, or not, because if he is he must explain to me how it is “arbeidsintegrasie” in the case of the Native but not “arbeidsintegrasie” in the case of the Coloured and the Indian. And it will be very interesting to know whether the hon. member for Benoni, who was so upset at the present condition, will be equally upset of instead of finding a Bantu in the job to which he referred, he found a Coloured or an Indian. So the fact is that this clause, if and when it is put into operation, will not make a further extra white person available to take that employment. There is no unemployment among the Whites, nor indeed among the Coloureds, nor the Indians, as far as the figures show, but certainly not in the case of Whites and Coloureds. Consequently there will presumably be a vacuum, and what will there be then? There will be a contravention of this provision by people in sly ways, to which the hon. the Deputy Minister will turn a blind eye. This will continue just as much as there are contraventions continuing of all the other regulations passed by the Government.

I have here a report from Die Burger of a day or two ago showing that the number of Natives who are illegally in the Cape Town area has been increasing again by leaps and bounds, if one can be guided by the number charged with this offence. So, notwithstanding all the laws the Government has made, and the regulations, the contraventions are just becoming greater and greater. They are just bringing the whole question of law into disrepute. More and more people are just ignoring these regulations. I think it was the new Administrator of the Orange Free State who, before he left this House, said that the Native people did not have the vaguest idea of what all these laws and regulations are about and, if they did have, their only feeling about them was to try to circumvent them in some way. And we are now going to get these further regulations in regard to receptionists, telephonists and bar-tenders, etc., and I have not the slightest doubt that it will simply compel countless decent citizens, both White and non-White, to commit contraventions of these regulations in order that life can go on. It will be interesting indeed to see how the Government in fact uses this power. They have, of course, taken the power to grant exemptions. We know that in regard to job reservation they have granted exemptions until the original measure is quite unrecognizable. The hon. member for Hillbrow pointed out that in one category of job, which had been reserved exclusively for Whites, there were in fact, as the result of the exemptions, to-day only 6 per cent of Whites still in that category. I should certainly like to see, and we shall certainly probe very much, if it is still left to the hon. the Deputy Minister to control these affairs, how exactly he administers this measure; because one has a nasty suspicion that this is just window-dressing for the election, just to be able to say how the Government stands for apartheid in this respect and how the Opposition, who in fact have been bringing commonsense to bear upon it, do not see eye to eye with them on the point.

The third and last aspect of Government policy I want to mention is this one about home ownership and family life. It is well known that this party, in regard to the Native townships, believes that there is most definitely a place for home ownership and family life. In fact, this has been established in a place like Kwa Mashu in Durban. According to the Government, this is quite impossible, so what do we find? This self-same Kwa Mashu, while at present it is not in a Native area, is soon to be included in a Native area by changing the boundary and then, hey presto!, it will be perfectly legitimate under Government policy for those same people to have home ownership and family life. This is an absolutely crazy aspect of Government policy. They have to go to the lengths of carving out sovereign, independent states out of South Africa in order to give home ownership and family life in a place like Kwa Mashu to people who could have it perfectly happily and with no danger to South Africa without creating such sovereign, independent states. When one considers merely these three points I have mentioned, one realizes how this measure is doomed to failure. Perhaps just to avoid any misunderstanding, I should point out that the United Party certainly recognizes that there is a traditional division of South Africa; certain areas are reserved for the ownership of the Whites, and equally there are other areas that are reserved for the ownership of the Natives. This has been so from the beginning of time and it still remains United Party policy.

In conclusion, I simply wish to say that the hon. members opposite are unfortunately using up the goodwill which exists between the races, and particularly between the white and the black races, by means of policies which have failed and are still failing. I do not know how long the people will tolerate a situation of this kind. I do not know how long hon. members opposite will still keep flogging a dead horse. It is well known that in the social, residential and recreational field the United Party stands for separation. It is well known, also, as I have indicated, that in regard to ownership of the land, the United Party stands for the Whites to have ownership in one area and for the Natives to have ownership in other areas. For hon. members opposite to suggest the contrary shows a complete misunderstanding of our policy. I am quite certain that South Africa therefore needs a change from this dead horse which is being flogged and flogged to a policy which will enable South Africa to go forward along sensible, commonsense lines. And I am hopeful that we will take a large step, or in the words of the astronauts, a giant step on 22nd April.

Before I come to the effect this legislation will have on the country, I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. the Deputy Minister on the very competent way he handled this legislation in the House. I want to tell him that I have discovered that he also has Job’s patience, added to his other virtues, particularly with an Opposition that acted the way this one did during the Committee Stage. He displayed a great deal of patience and handled the Bill very skilfully, and to do so one most certainly needs the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon, not that they came to light with great pearls of wisdom, but you surely know that proverb of Solomon which you, Sir, would probably not allow me to quote or to apply to them. Therefore I say that the Minister deserves our sincere congratulations for the very competent way he has piloted this Bill through for us. However, I want to say that this Bill once more underlines a cardinal difference existing between the parties, a difference relating to the United Party view that we only have one nation in South Africa consisting of various races. This whole Bill has just brought that concept to the fore once more, a concept the hon. member for Houghton is not ashamed of and which she pleads for in public, for which I give her credit; but the United Party is extremely ashamed to plead for that concept when they get into the rural districts and the country outside, i.e. that they believe that we in South Africa are only a single nation with different races, and that there can be no discrimination or differentiation as regards that one nation. The United Party is extremely ashamed to admit that their policy is that we are one nation in South Africa consisting of various races. Correct? They are very quiet now. They say that in South Africa there is only one nation. That nation is, in fact, composed of various races and colours, but we in South Africa are only one nation. This party has another standpoint. This party states that we have one fatherland and that we are in the unique position that various peoples live here in South Africa in a common fatherland, and seen from that point of view this Bill was brought to the House of Assembly to once more arrange relationships between various peoples sharing a common fatherland. Now I ask the Opposition once more: Why are you opposing such a Bill when you do not have the courage to acknowledge and to accept this statement that I now made so openly? You believe in one nation in South Africa consisting of various races, and that that nation should be seen as a whole, and therefore governed under one type of legislation. Am I correct? Did I hear somebody there speak? No, Sir, you will not hear anyone speak. When one gets onto this subject those hon. members are as silent as the grave. That silence of theirs is still going to be their Party’s grave; let me simply tell them that now.

Let me come back to a few of those hon. members and what they said. Let us listen to what the hon. member for Transkei said. With a flourish the hon. member said that he could not see why Bantu could not serve white people in all categories if they could do so in certain categories. To give an example, he sim ply cannot see why a Bantu cannot serve a white person across a bar counter when a Bantu man and a Bantu woman can serve a white person in his own house. Oh, Sir, how naive can adults not be at times, and adults, moreover, who do not live in a country where such conditions do not exist? I could still understand a person from England finding it strange for a Bantu to serve us in our houses and on our farms, but not across a bar counter. He may want to know whether it would then be such an unprecedented thing if he did, in fact, do so. I ask any thinking member on that side or, if I am flattering them too much, any hon. member opposite who ought to be able to think, whether they cannot see that there are various service categories and that the service relationship in the various work categories can differ? If hon. members opposite think they can get away with this kind of argument they are making the mistake of their lives; they are making a mistake if they think that our people will put up with their argument that if Bantu serve us in our houses and on the farms, they should also be allowed to do so in shops and in bars. There are many reasons why this should not be so, but unfortunately I do not have the necessary time at my disposal to go into it. It is actually ridiculous to enumerate reasons, and the hon. member for Transkei knows this as well as any of us.

You have now intimated that you are opposed to a black man serving a white man over the counter. Are you then in favour of a white man serving a black man over the counter?

I am definitely not in favour of that, and neither does our policy favour it. When we have finally implemented our policy I shall definitely not lend myself to that. We believe that each race Should eventually be served by its own people—as far as this is at all possible; this is our expressed policy, and if hon. members opposite do not know it yet, it is time they found out. This party is consistent in its actions; we believe that each race should as far as possible be served by its own people.

And if it is not possible?

We are trying to make it possible; this is the point we are aiming for. Since it is not possible as yet for Whites to serve Whites in certain categories, we leave a discretion and it is against this that hon. members opposite object so vehemently. As things become possible we leave it to the Minister and his Department to decide about that. But hon. members opposite want to have a fit about that. We are in the process of building out a pattern and everything cannot be done in one day. Hon. members opposite j cannot understand this. These things take time, I surely; it surely takes time to implement a policy in full. Here the Minister is requesting powers with which to do certain things in the course of time, as it becomes possible and necessary to do so. He is not coming along here with a measure that regulates everything once and for all, but with a permissive measure such as this.

I now come to a few things the hon. member for Houghton said. However, my time is very restricted and I must therefore hurry. The hon. member alleged that we are piloting this legislation through under pressure from the Hertzog group. But if the hon. member were to look at their benches she would see that there is not a single one of them present here. This shows what interest they have in this measure. They did not vote for this measure to be continued with … oh yes, except one, and he only took part in the voting after we challenged him to take to his heels like the rest. But in the Committee Stage not one of them took part in any voting. Yet the hon. member said that we are piloting this measure through as a result of pressure from them. What absolute rubbish does that hon. member not speak at times!

But they have achieved their purpose.

The hon. member must be able to realize that if her allegation is true, members of the Herstigte Nasionale Party would at least have taken part in the discussion here, with a view to claiming some of the credit themselves for this measure. How childish can a person not be at times! It appears to me as if the hon. member has a very good, or a very incorrect, understanding of pressuring. We are not acting under pressure here. We are going ahead with this measure because we believe that it is in the interests of South Africa as well as the interests of each of the population groups. That is the only reason for this Bill. The hon. member also pointed out that we speak here of “a way of life” and she said that we should simply go out here and walk down the street to see what the true state of affairs is. Furthermore she said that in recent years there was no “racial fiction”, not that she was aware of. The hon. member for North Rand confirmed this. I now want to challenge him to accompany me to any mining constituency, for example mine. Let him go and ask the white people there what their standpoint is in respect of mixed labour. Of course there is friction. I also want to take him to the Coloured reserves so that he can find out what the Coloureds’ attitude about this matter is. The Coloured says that he believes in separate categories of work for the various population groups. If, then, the Minister now wants to remove certain groups of people from certain areas, this must eventually be to the advantage of the Coloured population. Thus it will also be in the interests of the Whites and the Bantu. That is the whole object of this legislation. And yet the United Party supported the hon. member for Hough ton’s statements, as they usually do. In fact, when I asked him about that the hon. member for North Rand said that he did, in fact, assent to this.

She is right many times, more so than you.

We shall remember that and continually remind them of it.

There are quite a few points that the hon. member for Pinelands raised and about which I would like to have spoken if I had the time. But I do not have the time and shall therefore have to restrict myself to a few. He asked the Minister for an assurance that this measure would also be made applicable to Coloureds and Indians. But does the hon. member not know that this is the Minister of Bantu Administration and not of Coloured Affairs, and that it is his Department’s task to regulate relationships as far as the Bantu are concerned? He must just have the decency to wait until the Minister of Coloured Affairs speaks here again; then he may ask him. The Minister will tell him that when the time is ripe and it is in the interests of South Africa, as this legislation is, he will also regulate relationships there. The hon. member surely knows this. This Government is solving our race relations in a peaceful manner. If the hon. member does not know this, I suppose I must tell him; I think he will believe me because he does sit in this House each day anyway. We are here dealing with the regulation of orderly race relations in South Africa. The United Party, on the other hand, understands nothing of that concept and never made it their own.

May I ask you a question?

I would very much like to reply if I had the time. But unfortunately I do not. With your question you would in any case only have displayed a lot of ignorance.

You still have a few minutes at your disposal.

Then I shall allow the hon. member for Pinelands to put his question.

Does the Government plan on allowing Coloureds and Indians to do the work that is now being prohibited to Bantu?

That is not relevant at all. The Minister is engaged here in regulating relationships as far as the Bantu are concerned. When the time is ripe the hon. member may, with the greatest of pleasure, ask the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs what his standpoint is in this connection, and I am sure the hon. the Minister will give the hon. member a very satisfactory answer, one none of us will have to blush about.

The hon. member also spoke about the "arbitrary regulation of employment matters. He says that we act arbitrarily and that we leave it to the Minister to regulate these things. He thinks that people could thereby be without work. But the Minister is here taking both positive and negative steps. It is actually not relevant to this measure, but I want to point out that, on the other hand, the Minister is making arrangements for the Bantu to be assimilated into border industries and the Bantu homelands. Where the Bantu is too eager to follow the bright lights of the white man, the Minister will be empowered to say: “No, steady on. You must rather go to those industries.” He is definitely not going to throw them into the sea. Has that hon. member ever seen us act in that way? We surely always take both negative and positive action here in South Africa. And we always tackle the positive aspects first, before coming to the negative ones. This is surely the way this Government has always acted throughout the years. Surely this is not a United Party Government!

The question may be asked about what the effects of this measure are going to be on relationships in South Africa. This Government has worked out a race pattern, a pattern which is accepted throughout South Africa as the race pattern for South Africa. This legislation envisages the promotion of that pattern. Therefore we are proud to be able to vote for the Third Reading of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Namakwaland made a rather interesting statement. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he agrees with what he said. The hon. member said that one of the most positive aspects of this Bill is to stop the Bantu going to industries. Sir, is that correct? Does the hon. the Deputy Minister agree? I shall be very interested to hear his point of view, because the hon. the Deputy Minister has not mentioned industries throughout the whole course of the debate on this Bill. He has tried to imply to this House that it is not going to affect industry. Now it appears that the cat has been let out of the bag. I wonder what the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to say to that?

The hon. member for Namakwaland also said that, for a Black to serve a White is very bad, but for a White to serve a Black is not so bad, and is permissible until such time as a solution can be found. But nobody on that side has said anything about what is happening on the other side of the counter, the public’s side of the counter, where Black and White mix. Who serves which, or is the implication to be drawn from what that hon. member and other hon. members have said, that this is the beginning of apartheid in trade? I have asked this question before of the hon. the Minister of Justice, and of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, and they have denied that there is any intention on the part of this Government to introduce separate shops for separate race groups. If the arguments of these hon. members are taken to their logical conclusion, this is exactly what it means. It will mean that the Government is going to compel traders to have separate shops for separate race groups.

The hon. member said that in his constituency, which he claims to be a mining constituency, one will find innumerable cases of complaints or objections against what he called “deurmekaar werk”. Sir, I want that hon. member to mention to me one job, apart from that which we, in our privileged position in this House, enjoy, which is not integrated in South Africa. Do the miners not work side by side with non-Whites underground? Do they not help each other in emergencies? When there have been cave-ins and when there have been tragedies, have they not worked side by side as brothers to help each other? That hon. member must not make such statements. Every single Department of the Government service is mixed. In every single Office in South Africa the races are mixed. One does not find Whites only. Only we, in our privileged position here in this centre of South Africa, in Parliament, do not have a mixed community in the field of work we do.

Sir, what is the effect of this Bill going to be? It affects three statutes. We have had the discussion on the Bantu Trust and Land Act. The Government will now take over the townships in the urban areas. I want the hon. the Minister please to take note of my next point, because there is still some doubt as to whether the new provisions in clauses I and 2 are subject to the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Act, with regard to the question of adjoining land. I have had different opinions from different legal experts on this point, and I hope he will look into this matter. Of course, it does not really matter, because we already have the position where the Government will purchase a corridor …

I can tell you straightaway that these clauses are not subject to the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Act.

The provisions of clauses 1 and 2 are not subject to the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Bantu Trust and Land Act?

Yes, that is so.

Sir, this raises a whole new possibility. If clauses 1 and 2 are read in conjunction with the new section 70A of the Housing Act. which was introduced last year, this means that the Government can take any township anywhere in the country and declare it a Bantu area.

Surely not.

Yes, Sir, that is what it means. If the Deputy Minister is right, that is what it means. This includes areas like Soweto. When we suggested that they might be able to take Soweto and declare it a homeland in terms of this provision, we were told that we were talking nonsense. If the Deputy Minister is right, and the provisions of section 10 (2) of the Bantu Trust and Land Act do not apply, where it is laid down that only land which is adjacent to land belonging to the Trust can be purchased, then it means that they can take any township for this purpose. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister’s reply, because this throws a completely different light on the whole debate on those two clauses.

The Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act is also amended, and it has become quite clear that the object has been the violation of the rights which Bantu enjoyed under section 10. Of course, we are now going to find that this Government will be in the position to use the excuse of slum clearance and “threats to health” to remove the Bantu from the urban areas. The National Housing Commission, the Department of Bantu Administration and Nationalist-controlled local authorities can now all escape their obligations, namely their duty to provide adequate housing, because that hon. Deputy Minister and his Department are going to provide the housing somewhere in some homeland.

We shall also find the position where a Bantu, who remains in a township after deproclamation in order to protect his rights under section 10 of this Act, can be summarily removed on the strength of a warrant issued by a Bantu Affairs Commissioner. That warrant will be issued on affidavits placed before him. It will be an arbitrary decision. The Bantu himself will have no opportunity of appearing to defend himself and to state his case. All provisions for compensation will of course have been removed as well. I say that this is autocratic and authoritarian. We also find that it is going to be made even more difficult to keep Bantu in the urban areas, and that it will be made more uncomfortable for them to remain there, because no longer need one-third of the Bantu beer profits be spent on amenities in the urban areas. What will the effect of this be? The Whites of South Africa will continue to allow the Bantu to come into the urban areas to keep the wheels of commerce and industry going. We know that we need them. We know that we cannot operate without them, but it will no longer be made comfortable for them. They are going to have to leave their families behind. They will not be allowed to have their families in the urban areas, and they will not even have any social or recreational amenities to entertain themselves at times when they are not working. That is the effect of this Bill.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member has not entered into this debate at all. It is no good his making remarks now. He knows nothing about it.

The Bantu Labour Act has also been amended. The Deputy Minister, when he introduced clause 11, told us that it was his intention to assist the economy and not to harm it. He told us that the intention was purely the prevention of labour integration. Then the hon. member for Benoni said that this applied only when Black and White work side by side in the same job. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister agree with that statement? Can a white shopkeeper in a white area employ only Bantu employees? Will he be permitted to do that? I want to refer to my own experience in this regard. For years we have had shops in white areas being patronized by both Bantu and Whites and having both Bantu and white staff. These shops provide separate amenities. For years we have also had supermarkets where Bantu and white check-out operators work side by side at the check-outs. Do the Bantu and white customers in those supermarkets automatically segregate themselves? Do you find that the white customers only go to the white check-out operators and that the Bantu customers only go to the Bantu checkout operators? No, Sir, this is not the position. My own experience is that they go to the most efficient operators, whether that operator is a white person or a Bantu, and this is how it should be allowed to continue. This is absolute nonsense.

Do you want it to continue like that?

Yes, it must continue like that. The reality of South Africa is that it will continue like that. I want to challenge the Government to introduce a further amendment to compel apartheid in trade. They must compel shopkeepers to have separate doors and separate shops for the Bantu and white people …

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 68.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to thank the hon. members for Koedoespoort, Harrismith and Namakwaland very sincerely for the positive contributions they made during this debate. While I am thanking them I also want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. members on this side of the House who made their contribution during the Committee Stage, which was so long drawn out. I wish I could say the same to the hon. Opposition. As far as this Bill, and particularly as far as clause 11, which was supposedly so contentious, is concerned, the Opposition has without any doubt at all been taken in tow for the past 12 months by the integrationists, the liberalists and the Black Sash of this country. I shall prove this, but before I do so, I first want to deal with the three allegations which were made here this morning during the Third Reading of this Bill. The first allegation is that this Bill, and particularly clause 11, is allegedly a so-called “vote of no confidence” in the Minister of Labour. I want to deal with all three simultaneously. The second allegation is that we are now coming to light with this Bill shortly before an election and that it is supposedly an election expedient. The third allegation is that the Hertzog-U.P. forced us into this position. These are the three allegations I quickly want to deal with in one go. I want to quote to the hon. members from a letter from the Department of Labour. The House must remember now that we are dealing here with a so-called motion of no confidence in the Minister of Labour, that we have come to light with this measure before an election and that the Hertzog-U.P. has taken us in tow. I now want to quote to those hon. members from a letter from the Secretary of Labour to the Secretary of Bantu Administration and Development in regard to the Bantu Labour Amendment Bill. This was in 1968. The letter reads—

That was seven years ago—

This has now become clause 11 in this Bill—

Surely it is not possible for one to furnish a clearer, more adequate reply to the ridiculous allegations made on that side. But I can substantiate this even further. I have referred to the fact that questions were asked about this at congresses long before anything like a Hertzog-U.P. appeared on the horizon. In 1963 there was nothing of this ilk. In 1964—I have the resolution here in my hand—the following resolution was adopted at a congress of the National Party in the Transvaal—

A similar draft resolution, with more or less the same purpose, was subsequently adopted by congresses on various occasions. Therefore, to make this kind of allegation here, simply does not hold water.

But now hon. members on that side of the House have gone much further than that. They tried to present this clause 11, to which I first want to confine myself now, in a ridiculous light. I want to say to this House this morning, and I mean this honestly when I say it, that I, who must accept joint responsibility for the Bantu and the interests of the Bantu in the Republic of South Africa and who must maintain good race relations here, have on more than one occasion literally felt grieved when I was forced to read and when I was forced to hear in these debates about the atrocious and irresponsible statements which have been made in regard to this matter during the past year and more. I just want to read a single example of this. It is dated 23rd March, 1969, deals with clause 11, and reads as follows—

This is the word which has been used repeatedly during the past few months—

This is not yet the end, because it goes on to say—

Sir, I do not think one can find words strong enough to condemn this kind of irresponsibility. And then hon. members on that side still have the temerity to accuse this side of the House in an acrimonious manner of marring racial harmony in South Africa with this Bill. Only yesterday, and with that I want to let what I have said in respect of this matter suffice, a report appeared in the Sunday Tribune with the headline “It’s cruel”. In that report the following passage appears, namely “to deprive non-Whites in South Africa of their dignity; to reduce them even further in the official mind towards the level of cattle”. With all the contempt I can muster, I reject this statement and take it extremely amiss of the hon. the Opposition for what they have tried to do in regard to this Bill and specifically in regard to clause 11. They did this after they had become conversant with what clause 11 really deals with, and why it is absolutely necessary to place clause 11 on the Statute Book. I consequently maintain that the hon. Opposition has been taken in tow by these extreme integrationistic, left-wing and liberal elements and before they could come to their senses they were brought up short by this Bill. It was no longer possible for them to go back and they were forced to go forward. After having explained carefully to them what clause 11 involved and what the effect of clause 11 was going to be, I can put the following question to hon. members opposite: Do they think that I will occupy this position in order to collaborate in slanderous things of this kind which we are so acrimoniously being accused of? Do they think that I will occupy this position in order to do something which would disrupt racial harmony? Do they think that I will occupy this position and will collaborate in doing something to make the Bantu here in South Africa dissatisfied or to do them an injustice? Do they think that I will occupy this position in order to do something which will harm Whites in this country? We pride ourselves on doing precisely the opposite. Now what are the facts of this matter? I do not want to humiliate myself by arguing on that level with hon. members opposite, but want to hurl, in their midst, without further ado, the question of what they would do if they should come into power. Will they then abolish work reservation? Will they, if they should come into power, after this Bill has been placed on the Statute Book, the effect of which will be that it will not be possible to employ a Bantu woman in a bar to serve white men, blithely allow this to happen? Is that what hon. members opposite want? Is that what hon. members opposite are advocating? It cannot be prevented under any other Act. That is why hon. members opposite have been kicking up all this dust. I explained very carefully to hon. members opposite that this clause is not a work reservation clause. This clause 11 has nothing to do, and the hon. member for Houghton made this assertion again this morning, with putting a stop to labour competition in South Africa. For that purpose we have section 77 of the Industrial Reconciliation Act. This clause deals with one matter only, i.e. to put a stop to labour integration where it creates social problems and where it can lead to racial friction. That is what the clause envisages, and nothing more. I have also proved this.

May I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister? Would the hon. the Deputy Minister please tell us whether he will allow Coloureds and Indians to do the work which is now being prohibited to Bantu?

I wanted to deal with that later, but I shall do so now. The hon. member is trying to make me lose the thread of my argument now. Various hon. members opposite put that question. What are the facts in that regard? This Bill deals with Bantu, and not with Coloureds and Indians. My hon. Minister and I have no jurisdiction over Coloureds and Indians. They are dealt with by the hon. Ministers responsible.

But it is your Government.

I shall reply to that further, but this is the first point which must be stated. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs has jurisdiction over Coloureds, and we have jurisdiction over Bantu. As far as the Bantu are concerned, with the multinational set-up we have in the Republic of South Africa in respect of Bantu, we must put a stop to this process in time, as I showed very clearly. Secondly, this measure is very definitely in the interests of the Bantu as well. If my criterion, i.e. since it can create social problems and since it can give rise to racial friction is correct, surely it is in the interests of the Bantu that this should not happen. I discussed clause 11 with Bantu leaders. I explained here in the House the other day how we discussed this matter with Bantu very frankly. I can give hon. members the assurance that the Bantu understand it. One is grateful for the fact that they do not believe the accusations being made by that side of the House against this clause. The hon. member for Houghton again said here this morning that “we are going to kick them out of their jobs”. But the Bantu know that that is not the case. They know that they are not going to lose their work as a result of this legislation on the scale hon. members gave out it would take place here. I now want to carry on with my reply to the statements made by the hon. member for Pinelands, and say that this matter is also in the interests of the Bantu. The Bantu in the various categories of work I mentioned and in respect of whom this legislation will be put into operation in the first place, are Bantu whose services are urgently required in the homelands, as well as in the border areas. We know this from experience. Therefore it is also specifically to the benefit of the Bantu. Those hon. members must not be so irresponsible as to bring the Bantu in this country under the wrong impression in this way in respect of what is being envisaged with this legislation, as they are doing at present.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister? Can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me whether it would be labour integration if Coloureds and Indians do the work Bantu are now being prohibited from doing?

I have already told the hon. member that this is a matter which falls under the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and other relevant Ministers. In this connection I want to refer the hon. members on that side of the House to a question which was put a short while ago during this short Session by one of the hon. Opposition members and to which the hon. the Minister of Labour and Coloured Affairs gave a specific reply. They know well what that reply was. His reply was that he had instructed his Department to investigate this question and that he was waiting on the results and findings of that investigation. I am prepared to go even further. That hon. member must not think that I am running away from giving a reply. [Interjections.] That hon. member is not giving me a chance to reply. I do not intend running away from his question. In my own mind I am quite convinced that clause 11 of this Bill will be applied with the necessary responsibility. In view of this and also in view of the investigation ordered by the hon. the Minister of Labour and of Coloured Affairs in regard to this matter I can only say that we will most certainly do everything in our power to ensure that owing to social reasons which may create problems and also owing to possible racial friction which could be created in the process no Coloured or Indian will be appointed to the position from which a Bantu has been removed. In co-operation with the hon. the Minister of Labour and Coloured Affairs, this will be our purpose and endeavour. Why are hon. members on that side of the House not croaking and clucking now after I have given them a very honest and very straight answer? What is wrong with that? We on this side of the House believe in separate development and we believe in apartheid. We want to apply this in an honest, just, fair and humane manner. Let there be no doubt about that. The discussions on this clause indicated irrefutably that that side of the House, in spite of what they may say and in spite of their, actions, do not believe in apartheid. That is why from the very outset—and this has been for more than a year—they have put up such a prodigious resistance to this clause. That is why they took so much trouble to go out of their way to try to present this matter in an absolutely false light and to try to blazon the most grotesque, if I may use that word, misrepresentations of this Bill abroad. That, we think, is very, very wrong.

I should now like to return to the Hertzog-U.P. in connection with this matter. I should like to state very plainly here this morning that we on this side of the House will not allow ourselves to be taken in tow by the Hertzog-U.P. as far as this matter is concerned. When this matter was previously being discussed and we were engaged in a fierce struggle with the Opposition in this House in order to get this Bill through, they were conspicuous by their absence. They were not even present in the voting. I want to repeat that we will not allow ourselves to be taken in tow by them. There is another matter I cannot allow to go unanswered. The hon. member for Transkei was most insistent here that an enquiry was necessary in regard to the provisions of section 77 of the Industrial Reconsiliation Act. I want to point out to him that we made provision to obviate the possibility of issuing a promulgation in no time at all and summarily. That is why clause 11 now reads, after the amendment which was introduced and accepted here, that the Minister shall give at least one month’s prior notice of his intention in the Gazette. For what reason does the hon. member think I introduced that amendment?

But I said the Minister should give notice.

Why did I insert it? It is being provided here that he shall give a month’s prior notice of his intention in order to enable employers, if they have objections or problems, to come forward with those problems and difficulties. The hon. member wants to blazon the allegation abroad that we merely want to make a wild announcement regardless of whether it will cause difficulties in the country’s economy, regardless of whether it embarrasses the Bantu, and regardless of what the results of that might be. We on this side of the House are responsible. We will not do things like that, and that hon. member must not make such irresponsible statements here in the House.

Now I want to deal, finally, with the contention made here by the hon. member for Houghton. I cannot let such a contention go unanswered. She contended that Dr. Rieckert in his lecture to the Institute of Race Relations had no hope that we would be able to keep in the Bantu homelands even the increase in the number of Bantu there. I want to refer the hon. member to page 21 of his lecture. He stated—

He then comes to the conclusion that we are reaching that point. I am quoting again—

Therefore the hon. member’s contention is devoid of all truth. I want to let this, then, suffice.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he abides by what the hon. member for Benoni has said. He has said that the object of this legislation is to stop Whites and Blacks from serving behind the same counter and not to stop Whites from serving Blacks and Blacks from serving Whites. Does the hon. the Minister agree with that?

Mr. Speaker, I have stated repeatedly in the Second Reading, in the Committee Stage and again here in my reply precisely what is envisaged with the Bill, and I abide by that. It is being envisaged with this Bill to cover only the five categories I have already mentioned. These may increase according to circumstances. The provision that Bantu who fall into those five categories may not be employed is being inserted in order to prevent social problems which may arise and in order to prevent racial friction. That is all that is being envisaged. Nothing more is being envisaged.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he would explain whether section 10 (2) of the Bantu Trust and Land Act applies to clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill.

I just want to reply very briefly to the question which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) put to me before lunch. I have, in fact, already replied to it. Section 10 (2) of the Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936, is very clear; it deals only with the purchase of land adjacent to a Bantu homeland, and therefore clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill have no direct implications as far as section 10 (2) of the Bantu Trust and Land Act is concerned. The reply is therefore very clear in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by pointing out that the Opposition did everything in their power last year to present this Bill as a grotesque measure, as a measure which is going to deprive the Bantu of their employment here in South Africa, as a measure which gives dictatorial powers to the Minister, and as a measure which is going to have even worse consequences. In this debate they have tried to present this measure as a ridiculous one. I want to tell those hon. members that I do not doubt in the least that, with their prolonged opposition to this Bill, by which they have played into the hands of the integrationists and liberalists, they have driven a nail into the coffin of the United Party …

You ought to be glad about it.

… which will certainly be very perceptible to the Opposition on 22nd April.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—104: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jan-son, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rail J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Rail, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Third Time.

When the debate was adjourned on Friday, I was saying that this measure was one which had the blessing of industrialists in the absence of any other means whereby money could be raised and spent on the training of apprentices. You see, Sir, this particular Bill deals with artisans and those people who come under the industrial councils. It does not cover a wide sphere. You will remember, Sir, that the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Hillbrow covered a very much wider field. But the fact that the Minister has introduced this Bill does show the necessity of having some measure on our Statute Book in terms of which we can have a board or some organization to undertake the task of training the manpower of our country to enable them to play their full part in this rapidly developing country of ours. As I have said, this Bill does not provide for a scheme of training; it only gives the power to the Minister and to the industrial councils to raise funds from employers and employees by means of collections. No provision is made anywhere in this Bill for any scheme of training; that has to be organized by the committees of the industrial councils. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether a new principle has not been imported into this particular Bill in clause 2 (a) (d), which talks about “the establishment of a body to administer such fund and the appointment by the Minister of persons to represent on such body the employers and employees upon whom any provisions of the agreement are under this paragraph declared binding, in a notice published under paragraph (a) or (b) or by notice in the Gazette …”. Sir, that is a departure because under the Industrial Conciliation Act the Minister does appoint various commissions and so on but where you have an industrial agreement, the Minister does not appoint anybody to these committees; that is done by the industrial councils concerned under section 25. I do not therefore understand what the Minister’s intention is here. This is a complete departure from the existing position because the Minister is now going to have some say in the appointment of the people who are going to administer this trust fund. That is all they are going to do; they are simply going to administer this trust fund. Under the restriction in clause 25 he can only appoint an employer or an employee, neither of whom may be an educationist; so this particular committee may not be the sort of committee that he wants. The people who are going to administer the trust fund must have the necessary knowledge and must be able to decide what course of training the apprentice must undergo. There is no doubt that while meeting a requirement, this Bill at the same time leaves a gap which the Government is not filling. On their own initiative SEIFSA and the motor trade, have over the years, with the co-operation of their employees, been able to raise these funds purely voluntarily in order to be able to provide this training. The Government have failed here. As I have said, we have this gap between labour and education. It seems to me an unbridgeable gap. Over the years I have never seen it bridged yet. But there is a necessity to have some committee or board which is going to take care of the training of our technicians and not only our technicians but workers in dozens of other spheres of activity in this country. But making use of the industrial councils, the Government does serve a purpose but I do not think that this is the correct vehicle for the fulfilment of this function.

Mr. Speaker, in the discussion of this Bill up to now there is one impression we gained, i.e. the very important fact that as far as labour matters are concerned the liberal wing of the United Party has taken over this section on behalf of the United Party. This is a fact which we must not fail to bring to the attention of the voters outside in particular. For what have we found in this discussion so far? The two speakers on the United Party side who participated in this debate sang the praises of the Bill which the hon. member for Hillbrow submitted to this House last year. In addition to all the things envisaged in it, that Bill has one important objective and that is to facilitate labour integration. I maintain that that is why the impression must remain that the United Party’s liberal group have now taken over Labour on behalf of the U.P., and we must emphasize this.

But the hon. member for Salt River, who has just resumed his seat, went a little further. He came to light here with all kinds of accusations such as “The hon. member did this House a disservice when he started to bring colour in here”, as he said on Friday. But what are the true facts? Who are the people who brought colour into this debate? If we look at what the hon. member for Musgrave, who opened the debate, said, we see in column 933 that he states that the Bill does not deal with all the workers; for example, it does not deal with the Bantu at all and a little further on he says; "… a Bill which is aimed at the proper training of manpower for the future needs of South Africa should include the proper training of all workers (regardless of colour).” Now the hon. member for Salt River comes along and states that it is the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark who dragged colour into this debate. But surely it is feat liberal hon. member for Musgrave who first tried to turn this debate into a colour debate. The hon. member for Hillbrow says the same thing. When it comes to labour matters he states in The Star, 27th May, 1968—

It is they who want to drag colour into this.

The hon. member for Salt River said that the workers in this country were tired of politics in the trade unions. What did he mean by that? He ought to know that it is in fact this National Party Government which has always made a point of keeping party politics out of the trade unions, and the United Party cannot deny that. But what is in fact true is that the United Party are the people who try each time, here and elsewhere, to make out a case for party politics in the trade unions. We do not deny, as far as politics as such is concerned where it deals with the key to the survival of the worker and the Whites in this country, that this is a matter to which this side of the House has always given attention. I am emphasizing politics and not party politics.

But this legislation now before the House must be welcomed for it remedies an injustice because employers are now being compelled to contribute to the costs of training workers if they employ that specific category of worker, or if the employer falls into another category as that for which the training scheme was introduced, made provision for them. Even in the case of industries which are not organized under an industrial council they are now being afforded an opportunity of organizing training schemes on a group basis. This we have already indicated through the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark and this serves as a reply to one of the most important objections by the hon. member for Musgrave.

But then the hon. member for Salt River came to light and thought he was going to rub salt in the wounds his predecessor tried to inflict. He tried to make out a case, also on the basis of last years draft Bill of the hon. member for Hillbrow, that the industrial councils should not be encumbered with the training and education of manpower. But surely it was never the intention that this should be so. The truth of the matter is after all that these industrial councils are only instrumental in getting training schemes introduced and enforcing them, and that matter is being re-emphasized in this Bill. But as far as training itself is concerned, this Government is ensuring, and has been doing so over the years, that proper provision is made for the training of our people. I just want to illustrate this on the basis of a few particulars. It is interesting to note that in the past 20 years the number of technical colleges has increased from less than 10 to 26, and the total number of vocational schools from fewer than 20 to 81. In addition six technological institutes were established. Surely this is proof that it is for this Government a matter of great importance to supply trade and industry with well-equipped people. Where does the hon. member come from to try to make out a case here that this Government has overlooked those very important matters? Surely that is not so. To sum up therefore there is only one conclusion one can arrive at. It is that everyone who means well with the manpower in this country and who means well with our economic progress must support this legislation, and that is why it is for me a pleasure to add my support as well.

The hon. member for Springs will pardon me if I do not react to what he has said. It seems to me that he was just practicing for the election which lies ahead and he in no way discussed this particular Bill.

Those of us who are interested in manpower development and in the training of our workers of course looked forward with great expectation and interest to see how the Government was going to deal with this particular problem. Here we now have before us this specific instrument, this legislation, and I think it is our task to determine to what extent this legislation is going to comply with the requirements set.

Let me say at once that our approach is that this legislation is completely inadequate. After all the expectations which were roused in us we really feel that this is an anticlimax. Surely, the mountain conceived and bore a mouse. If this legislation is an indication of anything at all, it indicates that at long last the Government at least recognizes that a problem has arisen and that at long last here we have an attempt by the Government to try to solve the problem. I should therefore like to react to this legislation and to the matters submitted to us by the hon. the Minister, and since I am now the last speaker on this side of the House on this matter, I can do this more or less by way of summary.

The first point which is quite obvious to us is that when the hon. the Minister and the hon. members opposite who echo him talk about training it is clear that their horizons are extremely confined. When they talk about training they think chiefly of the training of apprentices. This is in fact the way the hon. the Minister motivated it for us when he put it to us; he said that he was concerned about the training of apprentices, that he had had the matter investigated and that he wanted very much to improve the training of apprentices. Here we now have the result in this legislation before us. I readily concede that apprenticeship training will be encouraged by this Bill, for it will bring just a little more money into circulation, and of course we welcome that. But our standpoint throughout had been that apprenticeship training forms a very small subdivision of our training problem. Surely we all know that the purpose of training is to increase productivity, and all the research which has ever been done in this country and elsewhere, indicates that where an increase in productivity is brought about, 80 per cent of such improvement in productivity stems from the management and from the technicians. It is the people who work with their heads rather than those who work with their hands who effect improvements in productivity.

As we see the matter, there is absolutely nothing in this legislation which is going to give us more managers and which is going to result in more highly skilled technicians. This is legislation which is chiefly aimed at improving apprenticeship training somewhat, and in this sense it is probably adequate, but as far as the overall South African problem is concerned, it is totally inadequate. Even when we think of apprentices, the skilled part in our industries, they are at this stage only contributing 13 per cent of the people who are economically active in South Africa. Artisans are of course only a small subdivision of this skilled group in industry, and apprentices are again only a small subdivision of this group of artisans. This therefore gives an idea of how far this legislation extends and what contribution it will be able to make here.

But as I have said, it is in fact on the higher levels, among our managerial corps, that we have such a shortage. Dr. Frikkie Meyer of Iscor recently made such a survey and he suggested that South Africa should have at least 500,000 people on the managerial level. When we examine the census figures for 1960 we see that we only just have 200,000, so that there is a tremendous gap which has to be filled here, and we see absolutely nothing in this legislation which is going to give us more managers.

But this legislation is only applicable to the industries, and we ourselves know that two-thirds of the economically active people in South Africa are completely removed from the industrial sphere. What about our service sector, and what about commercial life? Does the hon. the Minister not want these people to be trained as well? But even when we consider the industrial level, what about the mining industry? The mining industry, as far as I know, does not have an industrial council, and I accept then that they will fall outside the ambit of this legislation. What about the agricultural sector, which is one of the largest employers in our country? The agricultural sector does not have an industrial council, and as far as I can understand from this legislation they also fall outside the ambit of the measures which are being adopted here. I hope that when the hon. the Minister replies to the debate, he will indicate to us whether or not the mining and the agricultural industries fall outside the ambit of this legislation.

But we must not merely consider the problem as it exists at present; we must also look a little distance into the future. Here we are on the eve of tremendous developments in South Africa. We are being told that there are approximately 2 million people in South Africa who have had, or should have had, some kind of training or other. The indications are that by the end of this decade, in 1980, there will be at least 3 million people who should have had some kind of training or other. I hope the hon. Minister is listening to what I am saying now. There are then at least 1 million people who will have to receive some or other form of training during the next ten years. We also know that of all the different kinds of work which exist to-day, almost two-thirds will not even exist by the end of the century; it will be something of the past. Computers and all these tremendous changes in technology will change completely our different kinds of work. So here we are, on the eve of a great leap ahead, a new era we are entering, a new technological century, and we should have liked the Minister to have come forward here with a measure which would have been of assistance to South Africa in going forward to meet the future, but what do we find here? A piece of patchwork. That is what we have here. He has taken existing legislation and added on a piece. Then he sat back and is quite satisfied that he has now made a great contribution to the solution of this problem, but we merely have a piece of patchwork here. I stand amazed as hon. members opposite tell us how far ahead we are with our training and how good our training is, as that hon. member has just done. But do they not read what people like Volkshandel are saying? Six months ago Volkshandel said that instead of South African being ahead of the rest of the world as far as industrial training was concerned, we are a quarter of a century behind the rest of the world. What we needed here and what the Minister should have come forward with is a new kind of vehicle to push us ahead into the new century; he should have used a jet aircraft, or if that was too fast for him, he could have brought a helicopter so that we would still have had some mobility and could have shot forward, but now he is coming forward here with a horse and cart measure, for that is all we have here. In this debate it was frequently asked whether it is the Whites who must be trained or whether it is the non-Whites who must undergo training. I think we ought to go into this matter. Let me say at once that the training of White is absolutely essential. At the present stage the Whites represent only 20 per cent of the people who are economically active in South Africa. However, they are filling more than two-thirds of all the highly skilled positions. The burden resting upon the Whites and the contribution which they have to make is therefore already one of great magnitude. I think it is true to say that the human capacity of the Whites is already being stretched to such an extent that it is a cause for concern. This will become further aggravated for as I have just indicated, there is a continual change in our work setup. Let us take the top group, which is usually called the professional, technical or administrative group, as an example. This group at present comprises 5 per cent of the economically active people in South Africa. It is calculated with at within 10 years, i.e. by 1980, this percentage will be 7. The skilled group in our industries, which at present amounts to 13 per cent, will by 1980 be 20 per cent. From the nature of the case the Whites will therefore have to be doing more and more work of high calibre. We readily accept therefore that the training of our Whites must continually be expanded.

I now come to the question of non-Whites. Each time we on this side of this House talk about training, we are charged with wanting to have the non-Whites trained. I therefore want to put a specific question to the hon. the Minister. Is it that he does not want non-Whites to be trained? Is the policy of this Government that non-Whites should not be trained? The hon. member for Turffontein, who from time to time comes to light as an asker of questions, asks whether we would be prepared to introduce legislation to restrict training to Whites. I am asking the hon. the Minister whether this is the policy of his Government, i.e. that only Whites should be trained? The hon. the Minister does not reply.

You shall have a reply to that in a moment.

I shall tell the hon. the Minister what he said in the Other Place. The hon. the Minister indicated there that this Government was doing more for the training of non-Whites than any government had ever done before. That is what he said in the Other Place. He boasted with that, and he is of course quite right. That is what is so strange about the Government. When they sit here and are protected, they talk about the wonderful things they are doing for the non-Whites. But when they appear outside on a political platform we are charged with being the people who want to train the non-Whites. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs recently indicated how much the Government was doing. He spoke about all the trade schools which were being built for the training of non-Whites. He set out a whole series of these things to indicate how much the Government was really doing. From the nature of the case non-Whites have to be trained. Let me put it like this. Training of non-Whites is taking place at the moment. Is it the policy of the hon. the Minister and that of the Government to put a stop to the training which is taking place at present, no matter how inadequate or spasmodically? To use one of the hon. the Minister’s own phrases, it would surely be “foolishness of the worst degree” to propose something like that.

But let us consider this matter a little further. At this stage the non-Whites already represent 80 per cent of the people employed in our industries. It is generally accepted that even in the top group, to wit the professional, technical or administrative group, 40 per cent will in ten years consist of non-Whites. Is it the policy of this Government that under these circumstances non-Whites should not be trained? The Government remains indebted to us for a reply. But if it is the policy of the Government to train non-Whites, as the hon. the Minister said in his speech the other day and as was also said by his colleagues, why did he introduce this specific instrument with which to do so? We have here an amendment to the Industrial Conciliation Act. The principal Act, and hon. members will recall, de fines all the various groups. But when they come to Bantu they state that the Bantu is not an employee. What else a Bantu could be when he is employed by me and works for me, I really do not know. However, the Act states that he is not an employee. Oh well, we have very strange laws in this country. In the preamble, as well as in clause 3 of this amending Bill, it is provided that employees must be trained. However, according to the principal Act a Bantu is not an employee. Does this then not mean that in terms of the provisions of this Bill the Bantu in South Africa may not be trained, not in industries either? The hon. the Minister will have to furnish us with an explanation of this. If this is the case, this legislation is in fact so inadequate and so out of touch with the requirements of South Africa, that it really causes one great concern.

The instrument which the hon. the Minister is using is not the right one for the purpose he has in mind. I should like to motivate this in another way as well. The principal Act provides quite definitely that these industrial councils have been established to settle disputes, disputes between employers and employees. Anyone of us who has any knowledge of this kind of problem, knows that from the nature of the case one has people here who are absorbed into the process of negotiation. In the choice of people to serve on those councils one makes use of people who have knowledge of industrial legislation and people who will be able to participate in this process of negotiation. There is a specific atmosphere at the discussions of these groups, a specific ethos which sets certain limits. According to this legislation it is provided that these people should undertake the training. Here totally different capacities are being asked for. You need people who have knowledge of training, people who are aware of the latest developments in the field of training and who will know what is meant by programmed training and what teaching aids and all these kind of things mean. The kind of people who normally serve on these councils have no knowledge of this whatsoever. A task is now being entrusted to them which is quite beyond their scope. It is true that clause 2 provides that a body can be established in order to deal with the funds. Now I should like to know from the hon. the Minister who the people are whom he is going to appoint in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. Are they people who have knowledge of training, or are they a lot of accountants? Is it their task simply to regulate the funds? Are they going to make a contribution to the fundamental problem, that of training? Our standpoint is that when one has to deal with a training problem one must appoint people who have technical knowledge of training. When we put it in this way to the hon. the Minister he said that we merely wanted to apply a British method to South Africa which would not work in any case. How does the hon. the Minister know that it will not work? Has he ever been there? Has he ever sent any of his Officers across to find out what is going on there? Where does he get his information from to say that it does not work? I can inform the House that the British Government has told me that if they had not followed this kind of approach they would have been in a far greater economic difficulty than they are at present. I want to quote a section from Volkshandel of November, 1969, specifically from a leading article by the editor. I take it at least that this is an indication of what Volkshandel thinks. This particular article ends, in heavy black print, as follows—

he is referring now to the British approach—

I would much prefer to believe Volkshandel than the standpoint the hon. the Minister put before us, i.e. that it is not working in Britain. I want to ask the hon. the Minister who says this.

What did SEIFS A say?

SEIFSA sent a specific Officer overseas.

[Inaudible.]

Wait just a minute. I shall reply to you. Just give me a chance. When this specific Officer thinks of training, he also thinks only of apprenticeship training. I went to all the British councils, such as the British Engineering Council and the chemical council and asked them whether they had ever seen the specific man, the Minister’s expert there, and nobody in Britain had ever met him. I therefore do not know where he acquired his knowledge. He probably sat somewhere in an Office and then wrote his report. Here we now have an approach to the problem which is not only being followed by the British. The Dutch and Germans are doing this and now the Americans want to introduce it. Then the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark says to me that I am a copycat. I think that if one copies, if you know how to copy, it is not at all a bad idea. The hon. member, I think, will not even know where to begin. The hon. the Minister quoted from “Industries in South Africa” and, inter alia, told us that the British system was not applicable here, and that what had been proposed to him by SEIFSA was quite adequate for South Africa. I went into the matter, and it is so much rubbish. I went to ask these people what they meant by that, how they could say a thins like that. They then told me: “We do not want to create the opportunity for the Government to interfere further in industries. If the Government were to be given the chance of constituting training councils, we know what kind of training councils they would constitute. We have knowledge of how they constitute these councils. It will simply give the Government a further opportunity to interfere in industries”. They say that the devil one knows is better than the devil one does not know. Now the hon. the Minister has the political naïvete to come and dish up to us here what certain industries in South Africa say that is quite right, and that the whole world is wrong. Now what they are really saying, is: “We do not give the government a further opportunity to interfere further in our industrial matters. If we give the Minister the opportunities of appointing councils, we know what kind of councils the Government will constitute.” That is another point. The hon. the Minister put it to us in this way: “If this is done now it will cause a new labour shortage for us, for just think of all the hundreds of councils which will have to be established. Each one of them will require more and more people.” Sir, the hon. the Minister does not know what is involved here. The whole British Scheme, for example, is controlled by 15 councils. I do not think that there is one of them that has more than 20 members. Thus, 300 people are involved. They are responsible for the training of more than 20 million workers. When the hon. Minister said that this scheme had cost the British R100 million per year. Let us now get our standards right. This scheme as such is costing the British relatively little, for all the people serving on those councils, are doing so on a part-time basis; and they are not receiving any compensation for it. But when one speaks to the British Government, they will tell you: “Our contribution to industrial training is R100 million per year”, and they are proud of it. Now I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister once again. Let me say at once that we know the Minister. He does not reply to the questions put to him by this side. He always circumvents them, or he ignores them, or he says that we shall deal with them at a subsequent opportunity. However, if the questions are a little difficult, he ignores them altogether. I am now asking the Minister: “What contribution is our South African Government making to industrial training?” The Minister must not come and tell me now about trade schools, etc., for this is controlled by the Minister of National Education. It has nothing to do with him now. I want to know what contribution he and his department is making to industrial training in this country. If he can tell me that they are making a contribution like that the British Government is making, namely RI00 million, we will clap him on the shoulder, for then we will know that he is doing his work.

In a further aspect we think that this legislation is completely inadequate. The hon. the Minister now wants to introduce a system whereby certain levies can be made on employers. The emphasis in this kind of legislation must not fall on levies only, but on the way in which people are encouraged. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark quoted the other day what I had said, and it was quite correct. I adhere to that. I said that, in this kind of legislation, there should be the minimum of compulsion and the maximum encouragement. Throughout the world it is universally accepted that this is true. Let the Minister impose a levy on employers. That we fully accept. Immediately after the expert from SEIFSA, whom the Minister sent overseas, returned, he said: “As far as SEIFSA is concerned, we are not only going to impose a levy, they are also going to make payments to the people doing the training.” He is of course quite correct. That is how it should be done. We would have liked to have seen the Minister making provision for that in this legislation, but he is not doing so.

I think that there is one further respect where this Bill is completely inadequate. According to what the hon. the Minister told us, there are approximately a hundred industrial councils in South Africa. Just think of that! Each one of these industrial councils is now going to begin with training. Each one is going to have its own standards. Each one will lay down its own norms. If that were to happen, we would have a strange situation. There would then be over a hundred bodies and each one will be engaged in training. Each one will lay down its own standard. Surely this will result in a tremendous confusion. We will be establishing a kind of economic tower of Babel. It is very clear that we need some or other kind of National advisory body. Someone must co-ordinate these matters. Someone must undertake the advance planning. Someone must, after all, ensure that duplication of the training of the various groups does not take place. We think that a co-ordinating is absolutely essential, a body which can cover this entire matter, otherwise we will have a hundred different standards and each one will go his own way. But the hon. the Minister is stubborn. He does not want to know anything about that. All he is doing here is to introduce a system of fragmentization. For the co-ordination, which is so essential, he does not want to make provision. Sir, since we have a hundred different councils which are each going to collect funds from industrialists, friction will arise. Some of our employers will say that the levies are too high. Others will find fault with the way in which the money is being utilized and spent. Who is going to settle all these disputes which could arise in this way? Are he and his Department going to do so? Is that the approach of the hon. the Minister? My experience of these matters is that one should establish somebody or other, with quasi-legal or juristic powers, in order to indicate how such differences can be dealt with, but once again the hon. the Minister does not want to accept our advice.

Then there is the question of finance. We have a hundred councils, and all of them are going to collect large amounts as a result of the levies which are going to be imposed. We are not at all satisfied that there is going to be proper control over the application of this money. It is true that the Minister has in clause 2 provided that certain persons can be appointed in consultation with these councils, but is it going to remain at that? How are these people going to report? Will reports ever be submitted to this House in regard to how much money has been collected, and what is being done with that money? I think that millions of rands will be collected in this way. I think that the machinery created by the Minister in this Bill for this purpose is once again completely inadequate.

Sir, I do not want to take this matter any further. I just want to say that the Minister here had an excellent opportunity of really giving South Africa a big push forward, as far as these matters are concerned, but his approach here is now so colourless and so unrealistic, and so economically verkramp, that one really cannot believe that this is the Government which must lead us into a new technological era. I will not vote against this legislation, because we support the training of our people. In that respect we will support this Bill, but we are really doing so with great reluctance. As I said here, there was now an excellent opportunity for the hon. the Minister, but he availed himself of it in such a colourless way that it really makes one feel that he does not have the foggiest idea of the actual problems facing us.

Mr. Speaker, it does not surprise me that the Opposition is announcing that it will support this measure, for it would have been very strange if the Opposition had, after this discussion of a manpower shortage, lasting many months, had voted here to-day against a training measure which in fact envisages the improved training of manpower. What one found striking in the criticism of the Opposition was on the one hand their blissful ignorance of what is really happening in South Africa in regard to the training of manpower. They are blissfully ignorant of what the numerous industrial councils are doing on a large scale to train people. Apparently they do not know about the various schemes which are already in operation. Apparently they do not know about all the things the State is doing. Now I am being asked in a naive way what the Department of Labour is doing. They do not want to know what other Departments are doing. I can call it nothing else but a very naive question, for the training of apprentices is taking place in this country at our apprenticeship schools which fall under the Department of Education. This should at least by this time be common knowledge to any member of this House. It makes no difference whether the Department of Labour is undertaking the training or whether the Department of Education is doing so. What counts is that the State is doing something about it. Wien we come to what the State is doing, this Government can testify to a very great achievement. The achievements can be measured against the number of apprentices who are being trained to-day in comparison with the figure often or 20 years ago. It can be measured against the millions of additional rands which are being spent to-day on the training of apprentices and technicians as compared to a decade ago for example. Perhaps the United Party is not quite as ignorant as they appear to be from this silence they are maintaining. I think the major problem is that they deliberately do not want to recognize these facts. They prefer to conjure up the manpower shortages which have arisen as a result of our tremendous national development as a crisis. For after all this is the favourite term of the hon. member for Hillbrow: "We are now undergoing a crisis.” That crisis story has only one objective, and it is a political one. It is a political objective in the blissful hope that it can force the Government to depart from its traditional labour pattern. Now we are also getting these references to non-Whites. The hon. member for Musgrave was very concerned because all workers will not be included. I want to tell him and the hon. member for Hillbrow that they need not be concerned about that. All that was needed was to have read this Bill, as well as the memorandum published with it. Apparently these two hon. members did not see their way dear to reading it, for if they had read the Bill and the explanatory memorandum they would have found that the new section 8 (1) (d) provides that these industrial council agreements in terms of which training can take place can be extended to Bantu workers. This is stated very clearly in the memorandum, which reads—

Then it states further—

In other words, this measure before us can also be extended to Bantu.

But why don’t you say so then?

Here it is, as clear as daylight in the Bill. Why does the hon. member not read the Bill and the memorandum? Do I also have to come and give the hon. member lessons? One could at least expect him to have taken the trouble to read the memorandum Which has been lying on the Table for weeks. Then we get the other ridiculous question as to whether we do not want to train non-Whites now. This not something we need blench at. I keep on saying that we are training non-Whites and that we have trained more non-Whites than have ever been trained before. This is being done, but it is not being done in the pell-mell way in which the United Party wants to do it. It is not being done by means of an uncontrolled absorption of non-Whites into our traditional White avenues of employment. It is not being done by opening up the sluice gates. It is being done in a restrained manner. It is being done in the way which has also been discussed in this House, i.e. that Bantu will be trained in their own homelands to do skilled work in order to serve their own people there. Similarly Coloureds are being trained to do more and more work in these developing Coloured areas. But now I have to hear from the hon. member for Musgrave and also from the hon. member for Hillbrow that we have a “narrow vision” in regard to this matter. This measure is supposedly, in the words of the hon. member for Musgrave, “inadequate” and in the words of the hon. member for Yeoville “ontoereikend”. What is the background to this outcry against us? We are being crystal clear, straightforward and honest in regard to our objectives by saying that we as a Government are prepared to supply training facilities for the non-Whites. I have just referred to the Bantu. But we do not find the same honest candidness on the part of the United Party. With them one finds a continual chopping and changing in this regard. Here one finds a continual chopping and changing in order to disguise their actual objective in regard to non-White training. We are strengthened in this conclusion by the statement recently made here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. After all these years he stated very openly for the first time in this House that the United Party will abolish work reservation. I am very grateful to him for having, for the first time now, had a very clear statement from the United Party.

Section 77 will be deleted.

Section 77 deals with nothing else but work reservation. It is of no avail skipping about this point either. Section 77 deals with the machinery of work reservation, and if one were to repeal that section, one would be repealing the entire foundation of work reservation and the entire pedestal on which our White protection policy in South Africa is based. That is why we have been strengthened in our conclusion by the recent statement of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the United Party, with the row which it is now kicking up here about this training, is not being honest and open with us, the workers or the country as far as this matter is concerned. With them it is in fact an obsession that they want non-Whites trained in our skilled avenues of employment in an unrestrained manner. Let me say this to the United Party: By adopting that standpoint, regardless of whether it is camouflaged or not, they testify to the fact that they really have no understanding of our labour situation in South Africa, for if non-Whites were to be trained for skilled work in White areas, in an unrestrained manner, we are going to have nothing else but chaos in this country.

What is the Minister of Transport doing in the Railways?

It is being done in a restrained manner. If the hon. member wants to attack anybody, he need not attack only the Minister of Labour. He may as well attack me as well for I have granted exemptions to non-Whites to do exempted work. If the hon. member wants to attack someone he may as well attack me as well. I am saying this to him now without beating about the bush, but it is being done in a restrained manner. [Interjections.] If Whites are not available, and if the White trade unions have been consulted in this regard, then those people are taken into consideration and that exemption is granted. The United Party is coming forward here with its manpower cry, which is clearly political. If it were to be carried through we would have chaos in this country, but we would also in fact have a decrease in the productivity of our manpower, for if the White workers in this country begin to have fears about their security, one is no longer going to obtain the productivity from them which we are obtaining to-day. So we find the United Party resorting to all kinds of trivial arguments in this House. Because they did not have the courage to say precisely what they wanted, we find here a trivial argument such as that of the hon. member for Musgrave, who started off here with the story of how long the first sentence in one of these clauses was. He had so much time that he was able to count the words! He did not have time to read the memorandum, but he did have time to count how many words that sentence comprised. Now I am being told that this clause is too long. This is a complicated measure. It is not a cribbed measure, as is that of the hon. member for Hillbrow. He got hold of the British Act and in parrot fashion copied it out in short sentences. This is a measure which is rooted in South Africa’s circumstances and one which was drafted after consideration. It was drafted after thorough consideration. Its purpose is not only to make provision for apprentices. This measure is not simply going to encourage apprenticeship training, as the hon. member said. For example, we already have the development in the engineering industry at present, that has already worked out its training scheme. It does not make provision for apprentices only, but also for technicians in the engineering industry. That is precisely what this measure is intended for. Sir, the measure here before the House takes into account South African circumstances. There has been no imitation or cribbing as far as this measure is concerned. It was drafted after thorough consideration. The National Apprenticeship Board, on which the leaders of our industry, eminent employers in the trade unions, discussed all the pros and cons of this matter. It is true that SEIFSA sent their representative overseas. To-day he is being attacked by the hon. member for Hillbrow because he is no longer buttering up to that member. Now that representative of SEIFSA, one of the most important federations in our country, is being attacked. That representative was specially sent overseas. He studied the matter and returned with his report. He is not the only man who has knowledge of the British system. On that National Apprentice Board there are experts on this matter. They discussed this matter. When this Federation had finished discussing it, they said that they regarded this measure as being one of inestimable value for South Africa’s conditions. But it is not only SEIFSA that said this; other important federations said the same thing. The Federation of Building Industries, one of the largest federations in the country, said in its annual report—

That is, namely, the announcement that this measure was going to be introduced. They go on to say—

This is that hon. member’s imitation business.

It does not seem to me as if they are weeping over the “shelving” of that imitation Bill.

But I motivated it.

Yes. The hon. member would do well to read their report.

I went to ask them.

The hon. member would do well to read it again. Perhaps we can argue about this in a future debate.

Then I want to mention to the hon. member still another important federation. The South African Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors writes as follows in their comment on the Bill—

This is now the Bill before the House—

These are responsible bodies. These are not a lot of political agents writing these things. They are not people who state their case with ulterior motives, they are experts in regard to the matter. But now one has all kinds of trivial arguments, such as that of the hon. member for Salt River, for example, who is opposed to the fact that the industrial councils have Jo undertake the training. He finds that a terrible thing. Surely they are not training institutions, he says. But who is better able to judge the requirements of a specific industry than the industrial council in question? Surely these are the people who have most knowledge of the needs of artisans in the various directions. This is completely in line with the special committee of the Prime Minister’s Economic Council which was established in order to discuss this question of manpower training. We also realize that as much as is practicable must be done. But in addition we realize that we, in order to have this succeed, must have the cooperation of private initiative in order to achieve what this measure envisages. But not only do we need that co-operation; we also want to give those industrial councils that take the initiative to supply training schemes the statutory power. We must make their schemes enforceable. We must also make it possible for them, just as in the case of any other wage agreement measure, which is contravened, to take the offenders to court and to compel them to comply with that agreement. That is what this measure envisages. This measure does in fact contain that machinery to enable the industrial councils to supply the training, but it is now endowing those industrial councils with the statutory power to make these training schemes enforceable on those employers who in the past simply lived on those people who had been trained by the willing employers.

This does not mean that we will not give proper attention to the training of non-Whites. We will train them, but subject to the restrictions to which I have referred, which means that it will be for the Bantu in their own areas, and that it will not take place at the expense of the Whites in their avenues of employment. That is why it is necessary for this measure to be placed on the Statute Book without delay, for in this measure we have the assurance that training possibilities are being established without any disturbance of labour relations. In this measure we have the assurance that it will be possible to supplement our manpower without disrupting our labour. We have in this measure the assurance that we will obtain the co-operation from our industrial magnates and that we on the part of the Government are going to strengthen their hands in the execution of this beneficial work. For that one does not need such a comprehensive and clumsy scheme as the one the hon. member for Hill-brow wanted to import for us from England. It is definitely not necessary, for for that we would in this time of a manpower shortage have had to find extra manpower; from where I do not know.

I am concluding by saying that this measure does not testify to so-called “narrow vision” of which I was accused. On the contrary, this measure testifies to a correct “South African vision”, if hon. members want to use the word “vision”. It testifies to a “South African vision”, because it takes into account the realities and the tradition of South Africa and because it has the humanity in it to afford the non-Whites opportunities of training, but not at the expense of the survival of the Whites and labour relations in this country. That is the basic difference between us and the United Party. That is what it is all about. That is why I am concluding by saying that this measure, which envisages training our workers in an orderly fashion in future is in a manner which is going to give encouragment, but is also going to have the added value that the training schemes can be enforceable, will ensure true progress for South Africa and will help retain our most precious possession, our industrial peace in this country.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Judges’ Remuneration and Pensions Act, 1959, is, as hon. members know, divided into three chapters. Chapter I deals with judges’ remuneration and pensions; Chapter II deals with judges’ widows’ pensions; whereas Chapter III contains certain general provisions. The Bill now before this House, contains amendments which relate to each of those chapters, but the amendments which relate to Chapter II are the ones which are of particular importance.

Clause 1 of the Bill relates to Chapter I of the Act, i.e. the remuneration and pensions of judges. Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 relate to Chapter II, i.e. the pensions of widows of judges; whereas clause 8 relates to Chapter III, i.e. the general provisions of the Act. In fact, clause 1 of the Bill merely contains a consequential amendment arising from the provisions of section 19 (2) of the South West Africa Affairs Act, 1969. As hon. members know, in the application of any law in force in the territory of South West Africa in so far as that relates to any scheduled matter referred to in that Act, any reference to the Revenue Fund of the territory is construed as a reference to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, i.e. the Revenue Fund of the Republic. In terms of that Act the administration of justice is a scheduled matter. Consequently the salaries and pensions of judges of the South West Africa Division of the Supreme Court have been paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund since the coming into operation of the South West Africa Affairs Act, 1969, i.e. 1st April, 1969.

As hon. members know, the Judges’ Remuneration and Pensions Act was amended in 1968 to make provision for an increase of the non-taxable allowances and pensions payable to judges. Now the position is that the last increase in the contributions by judges in respect of widows’ pensions and the pensions payable to the widows of judges, was made on 1st July, 1965. At that time provision was made for a 50 per cent increase in the benefits and contributions due. Therefore, if one has regard to the decreasing tendency of the value of money, it is obvious that the time has arrived for reconsidering this aspect. The judges of the various divisions of the Supreme Court are unanimously in favour of increasing the contributions by judges in respect of widows’ pensions and the pensions payable to the widows of judges by 50 per cent. Consequently clauses 3 to 5, inclusive, of the Bill make provision for the increase of the contributions payable by a judge to the Consolidated Revenue Fund from R12 to R18 per month. Clause 6 increases the maximum amount a judge is allowed to contribute by 50 per cent from R2,880 to R4.320. In this regard I should like to mention in passing that the judges were prepared to make additional monthly contributions in respect of expired periods of service in order to make up the maximum contributions payable. However, in the case of judges there is no pension fund which has to be kept solvent actuarially or otherwise, and when the amount paid in by a judge has been exhausted by the pension granted, the pension thereafter has to be defrayed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in any event. Consequently it was decided not to require of judges to make payments in respect of expired periods of service.

Paragraph (a) of clause 7 of the Bill deals with the pensions payable to the widow of a judge who had pensionable service. Here a corresponding increase of 50 per cent is being effected, which consequently increases the maximum amount payable to the widow from R1,800 to R2,700 per annum. Paragraph (b) of clause 7 makes provision for the deletion of section 13 (3) of the principal Act. That section provides that a pension due to a widow shall cease to be payable when she remarries. Now, Sir, hon. members will recall that section 13 of the Parliamentary Service Pensions Act, 1951, contained an identical provision. However, that section was repealed in 1962 by section 6 of the Pension Laws Amendment Act, 1962, and a similar provision was not reenacted when the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act, 1965, which repealed the 1951 Act, was placed on the Statute Book. In this respect, therefore, the judges’ widows who remarry are being placed on an equal footing with the widows of members of the Senate and the House of Assembly. Clause 7 (2) regulates the position in connection with widows in receipt of pensions or persons who become widows of judges who retired prior to the coming into operation of the Amendment Act. In this regard the principle of the 1965 amendment to the Judges’ Salaries and Pensions Act is being retained.

As regards paragraph (a) of clause 2 of the Bill (in the Afrikaans version it is paragraph (b)), I need hardly say anything. This House is aware of the fact that last year we made history in the field of law when the hon. Justice Leonora van den Heever became the first female judge in our country. This necessitates an adjustment being made in the Judges’ Remuneration and Pensions Act; otherwise a female judge has to pay widows’ pension in respect of her own “widow”. Therefore, by means of this clause, we are keeping abreast of the latest development in our administration of justice. In terms of clause 9 all contributions already made by Justice Van den Heever are to be repaid to her.

Paragraph (a) of clause 8 merely contains a consequential amendment arising from the deletion of certain provisions by paragraph (b) of that clause. The subsections referred to in paragraph (b) of clause 8, relate to the payment of the salary, allowance or pension of a judge who has served in South West Africa, and these are being deleted in the light of the provisions of the South West Africa Affairs Act. 1969. In the final clause provision is being made for the coming into operation of the Act on a date fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette. In order to eliminate administrative problems, the aim is that the Act should come into operation at the beginning of a month.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House give this Bill our wholehearted support. I think one must remember at this stage what a tremendous financial sacrifice Judges make when they take appointments to the Bench from the Bar. They do this for various reasons, but mostly because it is their duty. I say mostly, because Judges are appointed when they are very much younger to-day, than they were appointed in the days gone by. It is therefore more a duty than security. They deserve security for themselves and their widows and the demands made upon them and the responsibilities they have to bear, I think, must make us all appreciate and support any possible benefits that can be given in the way of some security. Indeed, one wonders, while they are alive, whether more consideration should perhaps not be given by the Government to the salaries they are receiving having regard to the responsibilities which they carry. I hope the hon. the Minister will indicate whether any thoughts in this regard are being considered by the Government.

This Bill improves the position for the widows of Judges. The provision that if they marry they do not lose their pension, is a very good one. So we are very pleased that in fact the old Bill was withdrawn and this Bill introduced in order that that might be provided for more easily. As the hon. the Minister has pointed out, it removes the anomaly that a female Judge should contribute to the Widows’ Fund as a result of the appointment of —I do not know whether it has been decided whether a female Judge should be called “Her Ladyship or Her Lordship”— Miss Justice Leo van den Heever. The only aspect of this Bill which gives us cause for concern, is what is not in it.

That is not under discussion.

However, as Mr. Speaker has just pointed out, that is not under discussion. The Bill provides that widows of Judges shall in future receive a much higher pension and quite rightly so. The reason why this is done is that, having regard to the cost of living to-day, they cannot live properly on the pension as it is now. I asked the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions a question the other day, namely how many Judges’ widows are there at present. There are 17 only. It is a pity that they cannot be included under this Bill. I know that one of them receives only R50 per month. This woman has a standard to keep up. Her pension is only R50 per month. That is R15 more than an old-age pensioner would get who had made no contribution whatsoever to our national life. I think it is a disgrace. I hoped that something would have been done. We on this side of the House cannot do anything about it. Otherwise we would have given notice of an amendment. However, as everyone in the House is aware, only Ministers may amend Bills where extra expenditure is involved.

The hon. member must confine himself to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to point out why it is that we are not going to move any amendment to this Bill. We will not move an amendment because it is not in our power to do so. As I have said, only Ministers may move an amendment which will entail expenditure by the State not envisaged by the Bill. I do not believe that the Judges Widows’ Fund is actuarially calculated. Will the hon. the Minister not give consideration to these 17 “bestaande weduwees” who are in this difficulty. He is the only one who can do it. We cannot do it from this side of the House. I would say that the cost of living a fortiori applies to the existing widows more than it does to the future widows. Subject to this point which I have mentioned and to which we hope the hon. the Minister will give his attention, because only he can do anything about it, we offer not only no objection to this Bill, but our wholehearted support for this Bill. If the hon. the Minister wants all the stages of this Bill at this stage, we would be very happy to support him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Opposition for their support as well as for the friendly offer that this Bill may be taken through all its stages now.

I just want to refer, in brief, to a few matters on which the hon. member for Durban (Point) touched. It is true that Senior Counsel do go to the Bench at a very early age at present. In most cases they do so at a stage when they are not yet completely independent financially. This is something which must be borne in mind. This fact is also mentioned in representations in connection with their emoluments which are being made to me at present. Therefore we bear knowledge of this fact.

As regards the question of the wives of already deceased Judges for whom no provision is being made in this Bill, I just want to say in passing that this always is a very difficult subject. We have a similar position in Parliament. The widows of previous Members of Parliament do not receive the same pension our own wives will receive. The widows of previous Prime Ministers who served in this House, do not receive the same pension either. That is how matters stand. It is a very unfortunate position. Once one starts pushing these things, one cannot say where the line should be drawn. This is the difficulty with which I am faced in this connection. It is infra dig, but if a widow is finding it very difficult to make ends meet, there always is the Committee on Pensions which she may approach. That is so. Unfortunately I cannot give the hon. member for Durban (North) any assurance at this stage that I shall be able to remedy the matter.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this House and especially the Opposition feel happy about the fact that we have a very short General Law Amendment Bill this year. Secondly. I think they also feel happy about the fact that there is apparently nothing controversial in the Bill. I think they are also grateful that they have had enough time to study it properly. All the same, I do feel that I should briefly explain the various clauses in order to make matters easier still.

As far as clause 1 is concerned, it is common knowledge that the Department of Posts is erecting a microwave tower in Johannesburg. It will be possible for the public to visit the tower after its completion, and as an incentive, restaurants, including a revolving restaurant, and other amenities are being erected at a great height in order to afford the public a view over the City of Johannesburg and in order to provide the necessary facilities there. The restaurants and the other amenities offered can serve as an exceptional medium for promoting the image of not only the Post Office, but also of the country.

The catering in the restaurants will be of a high standard and as the Department of Post is neither equipped nor keen to undertake it, the restaurant complex will be made available to private initiative on lease basis. Similar undertakings are envisaged in the other large cities as well.

According to the lessee, the restaurant complex will be unique and will be open during all hours of the day and till after midnight, in other words, the normal eating hours that apply in the case of other restaurants will not be adhered to. This tower should be a great tourist attraction and convenient liquor facilities in the restaurant will contribute towards making a success of this undertaking. It appears that the provisions of the Liquor Act in respect of a restaurant liquor licence, especially in regard to the hours during which liquor may be provided, will hamper the service proposed to be provided in the restaurants. Consequently representations were made by the Postmaster-General to the effect that the lessee of the restaurant complex be exempted from the obligation to take out a restaurant liquor licence. In clause 1 of the Bill provision is therefore being made for the granting of Ministerial authority for the sale of liquor in such a restaurant, subject to such conditions or restrictions as may be imposed by the Minister of Justice, and for exempting the holder of such an authority from the obligation to take out a liquor licence.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, the holder of a restaurant liquor licence in terms of section 75 (2) (e) of the Liquor Act may serve liquor to guests together with their meals only between 12 o’clock noon and 2.30 p.m. and 6 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. However, liquor may not be sold after 9 p.m. on a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday, Ascension Day or the Day of the Covenant by the holder of a restaurant liquor licence. It is well known that licensed restaurants generally maintain a high standard and that most of their clients are prominent persons. Lately, however, restaurants are toeing opened which are intended to be more exclusive in nature and designed to attract foreign tourists in particular. In this regard I may mention that, according to reports, the lay-out of a certain restaurant in Johannesburg cost Ry million. If one bears in mind that the corresponding closing time for a classified hotel in the last group is 12 p.m., it would appear that the closing time of 11.30 p.m. for a restaurant of this nature as far as the sale of liquor is concerned is too early. Instead of extending restaurant hours in general, the Minister is being empowered by clause 2 to authorize, upon application and on the recommendation of the National Liquor Board, the sale of liquor after 11 p.m. until such late hour as he may deem fit. This provision will grant the power to authorize extended hours only in those cases where the nature of the restaurant’s business necessitates it.

The amendments in clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill are consequential upon the amendment in clause 1 and propose to extend the requirements in regard to the sale of minimum quantities by wholesalers to any person who sells liquor on the authority of the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of Prisons, etc., to sales by a wholesaler to any person who sells liquor by authority to a restaurant in a building under the control of the Postmaster-General.

As far as clause 5 is concerned, the Bantu Authorities Act, 1951, provides for the establishment of tribal, communal, regional and territorial authorities. As hon. members know, the boundaries of the respective territorial authorities are planned on a tribal basis within the specific ethnic context. In the determination of magisterial or Bantu Commissioner’s district boundaries tribal or territorial boundaries have not necessarily been taken into account in the past and it happened that Bantu areas which geographically or by virtue of occupation by members of the same ethnic unit or tribe actually from one administrative unit for the purposes of Bantu administration, were sometimes divided between two or more magisterial districts. It happens that in some matters a Bantu has to approach the Bantu Commissioner of his territory, while in other matters he has to approach the magistrate of the district. This just leads to confusion among the Bantu and therefore it is considered necessary to treat the various tribal territories as units not only for administrative purposes and for the purposes of their own forms of government, but also on a district basis. Because tribal territories are not necessarily continuous areas, it is necessary to establish districts which also consist of noncontinuous areas. This is what is envisaged in terms of this clause.

This brings me to clause 6. Section 33 (2) (a) of the Hotels Act, 1965, provides that as from a prescribed date, which shall not be before 31st December, 1968, no person who conducts the business of supplying lodging or any accommodation, with or without meals, which is not registered as an hotel under that Act, shall use the designation or term “hotel”, “motel”, and so forth. The date announced in the Government Gazette as the prescribed date on which the prohibition is to take effect, is 1st May, 1970. Furthermore, section 14 (1) (a) of the Hotels Act provides that any person who conducts an accommodation establishment in respect of which an hotel liquor licence and a certificate of classification is held under the Liquor Act, may apply to the Hotel Board for the registration of such establishment as an hotel.

Section 53 (3) of the Liquor Amendment Act, 1963, provides, however, that if no certificate of classification was issued on or before 31st December, 1968, in respect of an accommodation establishment conducted under an hotel liquor licence, the renewal of such licence shall be deemed to have been granted in respect of a wine and malt liquor licence in respect of the premises concerned. But section 53 (3) also authorizes the Minister of Justice to grant an extension of time for classification in any particular case for such period and subject to such condition as he may deem fit. Now it so happens that various establishments failed to qualify for classification in time and were granted extensions of time, which vary from one case to another, in order to enable them to qualify for classification. In some cases the extension periods extend beyond 1st May, 1970—the date upon which the prohibition on the use of the designation “hotel” will take effect. It appears that the establishments concerned are making positive attempts to improve their standards in order to qualify for registration as an hotel, and it is therefore equitable to allow them to continue using the name or designation “hotel” until a reasonable time after classification in terms of the Liquor Act.

This is envisaged with the amendment in the first paragraph of clause 6. At the Committee Stage I shall move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, in order to make provision for accommodation establishments in the Mount Currie district. These establishments have until the end of 1974 to apply for classification. The period of four months which is prescribed is necessary because the Hotel Board cannot immediately after the classification of an accommodation establishment register such an establishment under the Hotels Act, but must be granted time to examine and consider the application. Section 14 (1) of the Hotels Act, 1965, further provides that any person who conducts an accommodation establishment where liquor is not sold and where it is not intended to sell liquor may also apply to the Hotel Board for the registration of such establishment as an hotel. Until now, some persons conducting establishments of this kind have not shown great interest in having those establishments registered as hotels. Now that a date has in fact been determined after which the designation “hotel” may no longer be used, there appears to be an increasing measure of interest in improving standards and in applying for registration as an hotel.

However, time is required in order to effect the necessary alterations. I have already pointed out that the renewal of hotel liquor licences in respect of accommodation establishments which are not classified in terms of the Liquor Amendment Act, 1963, is deemed to have been granted in respect of wine and beer licences in respect of the premises concerned. Persons who conduct establishments of this nature may also apply for registration of the establishment concerned as an hotel. In such cases too it may be necessary to grant an extension of time. In order to provide for the various cases which may apply for registration as an hotel, it is deemed necessary to introduce a general amendment in terms of which the prohibition on the use of the name or designation “hotel” will be further postponed for a certain time. This is done in terms of the second paragraph of this clause.

Clause 7 seeks to empower the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa to make donations in respect of any matter within the territory and elsewhere. The law advisers are of the opinion that the South West Africa Constitution Act does not at present grant the power to make ordinances which authorize donations for purposes outside the territory, or within the territory in respect of matters which have been withdrawn from the authority of the Legislative Assembly. This amendment is being made at the request of the South West African Administration and is being given retrospective effect in order to authorize a donation in connection with an agricultural show which is provided for in an appropriation ordinance of the Legislative Assembly.

This must be the first non-contentious General Law Amendment Bill for years. Indeed, the great difference perhaps between this Bill and last year’s General Law Amendment Bill is …

The Minister!

My hon. friend puts it very well. Last year the hon. the Deputy Minister in charge of the Bill said that there was nothing contentious in it and he was wrong. This year the hon. the Minister decided that he had better be here himself; he says that there is nothing contentious in the Bill and he is right. We agree with him and we have no objection to the Second Reading of the Bill.

Even Helen is absent.

Yes, even the hon. member for Houghton is absent and the hon. member for Durban (Point) is not present either, which indicates again that there is nothing contentious in the provisions relating to hotels and to the liquor laws. He also is quite satisfied that the Bill is quite non-contentious. With regard to the provisions of those clauses dealing with liquor, I must say that after all the talk that we have had here about who is whose “bondgenote”, it is perhaps pleasing to hon. members of the Herstigte Nasionale Party to find that they may now have liquor sold with their meals when they dine in the Hertzog Tower. Perhaps it is also time that one should be able to have a drink immediately after one’s meal so that one can have some liqueur, as is provided for under those circumstances under special authority.

But, Sir, apart from those provisions the only other provision which might cause some discussion and on which we would like some more information is contained in clause 5. Clause 5 provides that the hon. the Minister, when he defines the boundaries of the magisterial districts can now make provision that they may consist of various non-contiguous areas. The hon. the Minister has explained that this is because there are Bantu areas where a Bantu Commissioner is appointed who performs the same functions but who does this in respect of the Bantu areas. In the Transkei there is a sort of working agreement about this. The only occasion when any difficulty might arise, is where an offence is committed by, say, a White man in the Bantu area. Does he not then come within the jurisdiction of the Bantu Commissioner? We see that in the Transkei Bantu magistrates are being appointed, and indeed not only in the Transkei, but also in Durban; in the magisterial district of Umlazi there is a Bantu Commissioner who I performs the functions of a magistrate where the law contravened requires that he act as a magistrate and not as a Bantu Commissioner. We would like to know just what is involved, here. Who would then try a White man who has committed an offence in an area falling within the jurisdiction of a Bantu Commissioner. Because the jurisdiction of a magistrate is now being removed in respect of that Bantu area. Sir, the other point which the hon: the Minister could clear up is this: Where else besides the Transkei does he anticipate difficulties of this kind arising.

Sir, clause 7, the last clause of the Bill, deals i with the South West African Constitution, which is being amended again. It is perhaps the most amended Constitution after our own. The amendment is obviously a necessary one. There is nothing in the Bill to which we offer, any objection but we would like some more clarification about clause 5.

Mr. Speaker, by way of an aside, I want to point out that the hon. the Deputy Leader of the Hertzog Pary is not present. It is a great pity, because he has the opportunity here to support a very positive measure, a measure which seeks to encourage our expanding tourist trade, and which makes provision for longer restaurant hours, etc … We noticed in the January edition of New Nation that the hon. the Deputy Leader of the Herstigte National Party is a connoisseur of food and drink. I say it is a pity that he is hot present to avail himself of this opportunity. Sir, I shall leave that matter now, and in reply to the hon. member for Durban (North), who has just resumed his seat, I want to point out that the provisions of Act No. 38 of 1927 are very clear in regard to this point. Section 9 of the Act concerned reads—

The words “magistraat” and “magistraatshof” in the Afrikaans version should of course, read “landdros” and “landdroshof”, respectively. In other words, this answers his question in regard to areas outside the Transkei. This will apply only in respect of an offence committed by a Bantu. As far as the Transkei itself is concerned, he supplied his own answer. Therefore, looking at the matter as a whole, Sir, we have no further reason to reply to any of the points which the Opposition raised, and for a change we are grateful to them.

I just want to reply briefly and to say to the hon. member for Durban (North) that the idea here is to do exactly the same thing as is being done in the Transkei and in Umlazi now. There are powers under the Bantu Administration Act of 1927 which make provision for a proclamation by which special courts may be established. This clause was inserted at the request of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and he assures me that provision exists under the 1927 Act for the appointment of a White magistrate to conduct the administration of justice in a Bantu area in a case in which a White person is involved.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as far as the subject of this Bill is concerned, the position is that prior to 1952 there was no statutory provision for the removal of tissues from the bodies of dead or living persons for therapeutic or scientific purposes. As a result of representations made by various bodies, especially the South African National Council: for the Blind, for statutory permission to use certain human tissues for therapeutic purposes, the Post-Mortem Examinations and Removal of Human Tissues Act was passed in 1952. The principal object of this Act is, subject to the savings provided in the Act, to legalize the removal of tissues from the bodies of dead or living persons and the preservation and use of such tissues for therapeutic or scientific purposes.

As a result of the most dramatic as well as possibly the most important development that has ever taken place in medical science, the existing legislation has become inadequate for meeting present-day needs. I am referring here to developments in the sphere of tissue transplantation, and in particular to heart transplantation, a sphere in which South Africa has led the world. The news that South African doctors had performed the first heart transplant, was flashed in messages to all parts of the world. This achievement by the South African heart-transplant team was regarded as being so important that for a considerable time it was given priority in world news.

In the course of time the South African success was followed by similar operations in America and subsequently in several other countries as well. In order to meet the manifold legal as well as practical problems which cropped up, the Americans drafted legislation which applies in respect of all states. We in South Africa have had the opportunity to study this legislation. With due regard to every relative factor, the legislation which is before the House at the moment and which, incidentally, is amongst the most modern of its kind in the world, was drafted. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that we are willing to make available particulars of this legislation to any country in the world which approaches us in this connection. I may add that inquiries are already being made from several quarters.

The Bill makes statutory provision in respect of the donation or transplantation of tissue, criminal and civil liability in respect of acts performed in good faith, trading in human tissue, the prevention of undesirable publicity in the lay Press, as well as savings in regard to the transplantation of certain organs which may have far-reaching legal, moral and ethical implications.

If it is borne in mind that in recent years no medical event has brought about as much disputability as did the developments to which I referred, the necessity of paying attention to the legal aspects thereof is obvious. The task of drafting suitable legislation was, in the first place, referred to the Advisory Council of the Department of Health. This council subsequently came up with draft legislation based on existing needs. This draft legislation was referred to the Medical Council, the Medical Association and the Provincial Administrations, and all of them, supported the proposals in broad principle.

This Bill was introduced in Parliament last year and, before the Second Reading thereof it was referred to a select committee of this House. The committee had at its disposal probably some of the best medical brains in the world—nothing less than those of the heart transplant team of the University of Cape Town which performed the first heart transplant, as well as those of the transplant team of the University of Stellenbosch, which has also achieved major success in regard to very important tissue transplantation. In addition, the advice of the Medical Council and others of repute in the sphere of medicine was available to them. Without fear of contradiction it may be said that the Committee had at its disposal the best possible advice.

I should now like to deal in general with the broad principles contained in the Bill. In the first place, the Bill confines itself to the question of the donation of a dead body and tissue from such body for therapeutic, dental or scientific purposes. Such a donation can be made by the person concerned during his lifetime, or after his death by a spouse or a close relative, or by a district surgeon under special circumstances, i.e. when no relative of the deceased person can be traced and two medical practitioners have stated in writing that such tissue is urgently required for saving the life of another person. Provision has also been made in terms of which persons wishing to donate tissue, may ensure that this is in fact done by wearing an identity tag issued by an authorized institution. In cases where this is done, such persons shall, in terms of the Bill, be deemed to be donors of the tissue specified on the identity tag. This provision has been included at the request of, inter alia, the National Council for the Blind.

Provision has also been made in clause 2 for the donation of the entire body to have preference in the event of contradictory instructions having been given by the donor. Clause .3 contains two very important principles. Firstly, it prohibits the transplantation of gonads obtained from the dead body of any person into the body of another person, without the prior consent of the Minister having been obtained. This applies to all cases where it may result in procreation. The necessity for the care taken in this respect is obvious; consequently it is hardly necessary for me to go into the legal, moral and ethical implications thereof.

Secondly, clause 3 relates to the highly contentious question of the moment of death, something for which specific provision has not been made in the Bill. The Select Committee, after careful consideration of every aspect of the matter, arrived at the conclusion that this was a matter which should be left to the medical practitioners concerned. The Bill contains the important proviso that before any tissue may be removed from a dead body for use in a living person, the death of the person concerned has to be established hy two medical practitioners, one of whom shall have been practising as a medical practitioner for at least five years, What is more, these two medical practitioners may not be members of the transplant team.-However, in the Case of the removal of eye tissue, this, may be done if the usual death certificate has already been issued. This exception was incorporated at the request of the ophthalmologists, since eye tissue which has not been removed within four hours, but preferably within two hours, after the death of the donor, is unsuitable for transplantation purposes.

The Bill also authorizes post-mortem examinations where they are necessary for establishing the cause of death, or for a particular scientific purpose. Provision for giving authorization to medical practitioners and dentists for removing tissues from the bodies of deceased persons, has been made in clause 5. Whereas the procedure in this respect is, generally speaking, similar to that contained in existing legislation, unnecessary cumbersomeness has been eliminated. But every necessary saving has, however, been retained. The savings prohibiting improper removal have been strengthened further by the requirements of clause 6, which specifies the particulars with which the Secretary for Health is to be furnished in regard to authorizations for the removal of tissues.

As is the case in clause 3, clause 5 also contains a concession in regard to authorization for the removal of eye tissue.

The Bill, Mr. Speaker, contains two very important principles concerning the removal and use of tissues taken from the bodies of living persons. Firstly, it prohibits the use of any gonad, removed from the body of a living person, in the body of another living person, without the prior consent of the Minister having been obtained. The dangers and legal implications involved in uncontrolled transplantations of gonads, are innumerable and need hardly be specified. The related clause, i.e. clause 7, specifically excludes the transplantation of gonads from one spouse to the other, and quite rightly too, since no moral, ethical and legal dangers are involved in such transplants. This. I may add, includes artificial insemination by the spouse. However, the Bill does, for instance, prohibit artificial insemination by the donor.

The second important principle contained in clause 7, is the prohibition on the removal of tissues for transplantation purposes from the bodies of minors or mentally disordered or retarded persons. Matters such as the legal right to donated tissue, criminal and civil liability in respect of acts performed in good faith and the prohibition of the sale of human tissue, are covered adequately by the Bill, i.e. in clauses 8, 9 and 10.

The last of the important principles contained in the Bill, is the provision in clause 14, in terms of which the publication of the names of donors and recipients is prohibited unless prior consent has been obtained from the persons concerned. In this regard I may mention that the Committee gave very careful consideration to every aspect of this matter before arriving at a decision. The Committee was unanimous in their view that the right of the persons concerned to protect their identity, had to be respected, and I am in full agreement with this, Sir.

These, Mr. Speaker, are the main principles contained in this Bill, and I recommend without any hesitation that this measure be adopted as a matter of urgent public importance. In fact, the Government also realizes how urgent this measure is. Hence the priority which has been given to it during this short session, for I am convinced that we—the Government as well as this House—do not want to stand in the way of our medical practitioners, who can be compared with the best in the whole world, in alleviating suffering or prolonging lives or bringing joy as far as it is scientifically possible. But I think I should also add here that in regard to all the achievements by our scientists and the great achievements that still lie ahead, all of us, and I believe our scientists as well, are very deeply aware of the fact that these successes are only possible by the grace of God.

Finally I want to express my thanks to the Committee, the Select Committee of this House and members on both sides of the House under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Prinshof, Adv. Kruger, for the very thorough consideration they gave to this whole matter last year. They had a short time to do the work, and I think they themselves realized the extreme importance of this matter. Hence we have a situation where the Bill before us at the moment, was unanimously recommended by the members of that Select Committee.

I want to commence by adding my appreciation of the chairmanship by the hon. member for Prinshof of this Select Committee. I want to add my appreciation to that of the Minister. He had a very short period available and yet the Committee, under his guidance, managed to complete its work. This is a necessary Bill. The Acts of Parliament which dealt with post-mortems and anatomy in this country were passed before the era of the modern organ transplants and there can be no doubt that organ transplants constitute a health-giving science which will grow. When you consider that one body can provide spare parts for at least 17 different people, one sees how important this science is. There are enough organs for at least 17 different people whose lives can be helped and who in many instances need and will receive prolongation of their lives. This Bill meets all the problems which are to be met legally and scientifically. The one problem it cannot solve is that of the donor, of finding a donor, but that is a subject which can be discussed later. For many years surgeons have occupied themselves with helping dying or deformed people by transplants, by trying to remove one organ from one person to another, or by replacing parts which disfigure by metal plates, or bones from animals. In fact, almost everything conceivable has been used at some time or another in the effort to help the disfigured or injured person, but with only one success. That success is the invention of a metal called vitallium, which is a metal specially prepared and which lies inert in the human body and is not rejected. The most common transplant is, of course, human blood. When properly controlled and managed, it is a transplant which never fails, and under modern conditions it practically never gives rise to any complications. But it should not be forgotten that at the outbreak of World War I we were roughly in the position as regards blood transfusions in which we are to-day in regard to the transplantation of organs. It took many years from the first attempts to transplant blood before it was scientifically arranged and science had the knowledge to be able to say that this blood is suitable and that blood is not suitable, and if you use it it will be rejected, but if you use the other one it will not be rejected. We are in about the same position to-day with human transplants. Blood has the advantage that it is easily collected and it does not seriously affect the donor. It can be stored and it can be transported. All these are practical problems which face those doctors who are attempting to deal with the transplantation of organs. It is thanks to those scientists who carried out the research that we have such success to-day that really blood transfusion is almost taken for granted. But here, more than almost any other organ, it was found that ft was difficult to get donors. Donors were slow in coming forward and it was extremely difficult. There were times, as I personally can remember, when there was no blood available and it was urgently needed.

It took the Second World War to make the public realize the public duty of offering themselves as donors. It was during that war that most of this work was carried out. It saved many a life of both combatants and noncombatants during that war. There were occasional successes before of hetero-transplants, namely transplants from one human onto another. There were occasional temporary successes. There were, for instance, cases of a badly burnt baby from whom it was impossible to take skin for transplanting which was urgently needed to get the wounds to heal on account of there being no skin available. A transplant of skin from the mother to that child would then be performed to temporarily tide the child over a difficult period until an auto transplant could be carried out. Occasional transplants from twins were successful. But there were no other successful transplants before the advent of the present era of tissue matching. I have no doubt that the question of tissue matching will be solved. Nobody can however say when. Until that can be done, the question of the treatment of heart transplants is one which cannot be neglected.

The offer of a heart transplant is not an offer of a normal life. It is at best an extension of some months, or perhaps some years as it improves. to the life which faces the recipient. The recipient alt present is one who has had every possible treatment which the physicians can offer him. It is only after such treatment that it is finally decided that he must be offered a new heart as the only prospect of prolonging his life. It should not be thought that the recipient in a heart transplant comes to a hospital by hazard. The truth of the matter is that, particularly in a large teaching hospital, there are always recipients waiting on a graft. This is because the man Who comes to the hospital is usually under the care of the hospital doctors, on and off, for long periods of even years. Finally, the doctors who have studied this man and who understand his condition decide that the only our available is that of a transplant. Normally he would have had only a few weeks to live without such transplant.

This, therefore, means that the scarcity of donors is of the utmost importance. Many of these people die while waiting on a donor. The donor on the other hand is only found by chance when he or she is admitted to a hospital suffering from a serious brain illness or injury while the remainder of his or her body is still normal. The potential donor is admitted as a sick man and not as a potential donor. The question of a potential donor does not arise in any hospital until such time as the resuscitating teams or the teams in the intensive care unit who accept these people are perfectly satisfied that this man has no prospect of recovery. The decision is only then communicated to the transplant team that such a potential donor is available. Up till that moment the transplant team is probably not even aware that such a person is in the hospital. It is only after the highly qualified, highly trained and highly experienced people in that hospital who are detailed specially, not for transplants but for resuscitation and care of the dangerously ill people, are beginning to despair, that any word whatever will be sent to the transplant team. It is only at that stage that the transplant team will be put in a state of readiness but not necessarily called to the hospital. The resuscitating team consists of experts in resuscitation and in the care of people. They do their work under supervision of experts in the various areas where the injury lies, mostly injuries, damage or illness of the brain. The brain is entirely the deciding factor in death. It is only when the resuscitation team is perfectly satisfied that there has been irrecoverable damage to the brain that steps are taken to hand over the patient. The patient is kept alive by respirators, transfusions and oxygenated blood for a long period before that decision is made. Once those in charge of the resuscitation are satisfied that the patient is irretrievably dead and that his brain can never recover, two ordinary practitioners are called in to state whether or not the patient is alive. These two men will have at their disposal, firstly the team itself. These will give them advice. They will see the machines turned off. They can take as long as they like to make a decision. But they must make that decision and they alone with all the advice available. At that moment the decision is taken to make no more efforts to carry on with means of resuscitation.

I stress this, because there is a widespread fear, not only in this country but also in other parts of the world, that donors who might have recovered or who are capable of recovery might be used. It must be remembered that these two practitioners are not there to hand over a viable donor. By viable I do not mean alive donor. “Viable” means capable of survival or physically able to survive, not alive. That can never take place in the case of the brain. Brain decides death. It is only when they are satisfied that the brain is dead that they will sign the certificates. There is not the slightest danger of donors being used before the brain is irretrievably dead. It is absolutely vital that, that shall have been certified by competent ordinary doctors. The public, lawyers and theologians are all worried about this. Life and death are not moments. The brain may die in a moment but the heart may take up to eight hours under careful treatment before it dies. The limbs will live for about eight hours under treatment, the nails and the hair possibly for longer still. The cornea of the eye can be stored for about 21 days. But there i Will never be a brain transplant because it will have to be a living transplant. And that will never take place.

What a pity for the Nats.

These are serious matters. The question of life and death is not an instant. The theologians particularly would like, us to be able to say that the soul has departed. But is the heart the home of the soul? Who has seen any soul departed or seen one come back for that matter? That is something which they will have to do without. We can absolutely guarantee that no other institution apart from a teaching hospital or large hospital anywhere will ever attempt transplants. The only exception could perhaps be that of a cornea transplant. No other hospital than a large teaching hospital can possibly undertake a heart transplant, a liver transplant or even a kidney transplant. These are vital organs which need the most careful and knowledgeable care during transplants and thereafter. We must however face the fact that the public must be reassured. That is why I have taken considerable time over this particular point in order to show as far as possible that the safeguards are the same as those in any other doctor’s practice. The public have had confidence in doctors, not only in this country, but in the world. They have relied on doctors to make just such decisions as are called for in these instances. There is no real difference between the responsibility carried by a doctor who cares for a patient in the home and finally ascertains that he is dead and signs the certificate, and the responsibility of the doctor deciding in a hospital that a man has died and that he can be used as a donor. How often do! we, particularly in Durban, not have to stop artificial respiration on a person who has drowned. There comes at time when one sees; that the person will recover, or else you say to those who are helping you: “It is no good. We have to give up. The man is dead.” There is no difference. The responsibility on the doctor is the same. Only in this Bill it says that, for the particular purposes of a transplant, there must be two ordinary practitioners to certify death. One would do. He would be responsible. He knows his responsibility. I hope that with this Bill we shall remove the doubts from the minds of the public and that the faith which they have always had in their doctors will remain justified and will continue.

Mr. Speaker, you will permit me, as Chairman of the Select Committee which submitted this Bill to the hon. the Minister, to thank in brief a few people and organizations for the assistance they gave us. Firstly, I should like to convey the thanks, of the Committee to the Secretariat, which, under the guidance of Mr. Van der Westhuizen, arranged everything for us in a very thorough manner. Then I should also like to thank Mr. Marr of the Department of Health for his assistance in regard to the drafting of this Bill. In spite of the fact that at a certain stage I had to make use of his services almost every day and sometimes took up his: time until late in the day, after 4.30 p.m., he was always willing to do the work and acquitted himself of his task in a vigorous manner. In addition, I want to extend the thanks of the Committee to those persons and organizations that assisted us through their particularly illuminating memoranda, as well as to the medical men and members of the Press Union, who gave us the benefit of their particular specialized knowledge. World famous medical men appeared before us, and we appreciate the sacrifice of their precious time. I want to express my personal gratitude and appreciation to the other members of the Committee. The Committee consisted of colleagues from both sides of this House, i.e. medical men, a medical scientist and lawyers. The assistance rendered by the medical men on the Committee was invaluable to us in our work. I want to express the modest hope that we, who are lawyers, also made a contribution.

Very briefly I should just like to motivate a few significant decisions taken by the Committee. I start with clause 14, which deals with publicity in regard to transplants. I want to make it very clear that the Committee proceeded on the premise that we wanted to restrict the Press as little as possible as far as its work was concerned. However, all the witnesses were agreed that there was a sphere of the private life of every person in respect of which he was entitled to its remaining private, unless the person himself preferred it to be otherwise, and that transplant operations were such a sphere. This was also the attitude adopted by the British Medical Council in a memorandum submitted to us. Consequently it was decided to make publicity in regard to such Operations subject to the consent of the person himself.

Then I should like to refer to clause 3 (2), which deals with establishing the moment of death. Having listened to the various opinions, as well as differences of opinion, of the very learned gentlemen, the Committee realized that it was no easy task to define death, nor to pin-point the moment of death. Just as it is virtually impossible to determine the exact moment at which an unborn child receives the impulse of life from the Giver of all good things, so difficult it is to determine the exact moment at which life passes from the human body. The only thing the doctor can do, is to tell the mother of an unborn child at a certain moment, “Your child is alive,” without determining the precise moment at which life started. In the same way it is possible for doctors to state clearly, “The person is dead,” without determining the exact moment at which it occurred. The Committee subsequently decided that the condition of death should therefore be left in the hands of two medical practitioners, who are not members of any surgical team, who are involved in such a case. It is important to us that, having heard all the evidence, especially from the medical men of the hospitals where transplants had already taken place, the Committee was quite satisfied that no human tissue was being removed from a person before he had actually died.

According to its modest ability, the Committee also tried to foresee in the Bill possible, future medical breakthroughs. If one bears in mind that man has already placed a man on the moon, I think that the Committee was not presumptuous in adopting such an attitude. I am referring in particular to the possible transplant of ovaries into barren women. In my modest opinion this would imply a greater breakthrough than the one accomplished in respect of heart transplants. This would hold out to thousands of barren women the prospect of cuddling a child of their own. ‘

The Committee accepts that possible amendments will perhaps be effected to the Bill. Actually, nothing is perfect, but we are nevertheless of the opinion that this Bill will satisfy the medical profession. We should like to extend to the hon. the Minister our sincere thanks for affording us the opportunity to serve on such an interesting Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that this Bill, amongst other things, gives security to those involved in the great strides made during the past few years in the fields of specialized medicine and surgery, those strides which have led to what is now popularly called transplantation of organ surgery. The progress made is really sensational. We in South Africa must, of course, join in showering great praise and great honour on those surgeons, physicians, technicians, pathologists and immunologists who played such a great part in the behind scenes activities which took place before the sensational heart transplant by Dr. Barnard occurred. These people did not do this work overnight. It took years of preparation, years of diligence and years: of tenacity before they ventued into an unknown world. I must say that the sensation that this original heart transplant caused throughout the world was phenomenal. For South Africans it was a great tribute that, here in Cape Town, this work had been undertaken, and undertaken successfully. But then, we must look further, and say to ourselves: What part did we play? What part did the man in the street play? What did the Government do towards this great surgical venture? I want to say a few filings now about the opportunities that exist for the public and for the Government in this regard, so that those research workers who want to further their work will not be hindered. The Republic has, without doubt, a vast, natural and nation-wide laboratory. This laboratory s doors must be kept open. The only way in which it can be done is by individuals, as they have been doing recently, by the Government, by public bodies and institutions of all kinds putting their hands deep into their pockets and giving towards research work. Let. us take, for instances, the opportunities that exist for studying heart diseases or arterial diseases. There is no country in the world that has these opportunities because here we have three different groups of people. We have the Bantu, the Coloureds and the white people. The opportunity that exists here to study the differences between the Bantu, the Coloured and the white, person are boundless because we know that in the case of the Bantu, coronary thrombosis for instance, is a rare disease and that as he becomes westernized, so it becomes more frequent. We know that the Coloured as far as coronary thrombosis is concerned is nearer to the white man. The tragedy of the story, however, is that 40 per cent of the middle-aged persons in western countries, and that means 40 per cent of our white people here, may die of coronary thrombosis. We have the opportunity here to find out how we can avoid this because of the incidence factors in our different races. If we do not take this opportunity soon, we may find that it will be too late to do it in 20 or 30 years’ time. Already we know that conditions that existed concerning the Bantu 20 years ago do not exist among them to-day. Research workers will verify what I say. The position is not only applicable to the Whites and the Bantu as far as arterial disease is concerned. Take, for instance, liver ailments. The hon. member for Durban (Central) mentioned briefly that liver transplants are being experimented with now. Transplants have already been done where the liver of one person has been transplanted in another person with very moderate success. Since it is known that the Bantu suffer much more frequently from cancer of the liver than white persons, surely the opportunity exists here to find out why. We must give the research workers who want to do the work, the money to do it.; Let them get the tools from us to see if they can find out why these things are happening. There are many research workers in South Africa to-day. They are keen and ready to do the work. We unfortunately also have the subjects on whom the work must be performed. The sick people are there in their thousands. Speak to research workers and they will tell you however that they cannot get the money they want. For these people there must be money and we must find it. General De Gaulle made an appeal to countries throughout the world to give .5 per cent of the money voted for Defence to research into these matters. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine how much money research workers throughout the world would get if that was done. Even in South Africa a large sum of money would flow into the coffers of research workers yearly. The money spent on Defence is to keep us alive and the same applies to these research workers. They want to keep the people alive as well. They want to protect them. I would say that they would possibly have far less wastage of funds through disuse than the Department of Defence. Let us consider the matter in that perspective and see what the Department of Defence can divert from its coffers and let the research workers get that money so that they can carry on with this magnificent work.

This Bill which is a new and an original Bill will, I hope, be copied by other countries. But we must not think for one moment that this is the beginning and the end of legislation in regard to anatomical donations. This is only the beginning and as we progress, as research workers and doctors find ways and means of performing transplants, operations which are looked upon as miracles to-day, will soon become commonplace. When that happens, this Bill will have to be amended again and again and I hope that the Bill takes such a form that it can be amended because of the strides that are made in research work, research work which has only one object, namely to keep man alive. We must, therefore, help these people as much as we possibly can. I suppose that 50 years ago religious bodies would have frowned upon taking a part of one body and putting it into another body. Today, however, by far the majority of religious bodies have the view that the living come first, and thus do not stand in the way of this kind of surgery; they would help rather than hinder it, and it is good to know that this support is coming from all sections of the population.

As far as the provisions of the Bill itself are concerned, looking back to what happened when a certain heart transplant took place, I think that one of the important points that is in this Bill is that the donor and the donor’s family and the doctors find security. Secrecy can be kept. I think it is most important that secrecy can be kept if that is the wish of the people involved. If this Bill does not do anything else, it at least lays down that the people who are responsible for taking an organ out of a body and for getting it ready to put into another body cannot be accused of doing something which people may think immoral or illegal.

I want to say that in my opinion it would be absolutely criminal if we were to deny able, capable and willing men opportunities of re search into the major killing diseases just because of money. If we deny these resources to the people who want to do the work, it can only lead to more people dying. More people will die than should die. The standard of health throughout the country can only become lower. I repeat, to do this would be criminal. I appeal to the Government to consider seriously making larger grants to those people who are engaged in this work.

Finally. I want to add my thanks to those extended by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Durban (Central) to those persons who came and gave evidence and helped us to produce this Bill. I also want to congratulate the Chairman and the officials of the department who spent so much time not only on the proceedings of the Committee’s work, but also on preparing the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the rapid progress made in the technique of transplanting tissues over the past few years, suitable legislation has become extremely necessary and desirable, because there were certain aspects in respect of the process of transplantation which were not stated clearly in the existing legislation. That is why I want to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister for having submitted this Bill to this House last year and for having referred if to a select committee. Then I also want to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. member for Prinshof, who was chairman of this Select Committee, for the way in which he handled the deliberations of the Committee. It is possible for us to speak appreciatively of the zeal with which he fulfilled his duties. I also want to express my thanks to the other members of this Select Committee for having approached in a scientific manner the evidence submitted to this Committee by learned persons. That is why it has been possible for us to submit for approval to this House to-day such an excellent piece of legislation.

There were several aspects which needed to be clarified further by way of legislation. For instance, the questions I have in mind here are as follows: Who may make donations? Whom may receive such organs? How can such donations be revoked? These things are now being clarified in clause 2.

In clause 3 we find that the much disputed question of the moment of death is now being settled; this question caused a great deal of trouble before, as people claimed that organs were being removed from persons who were as yet not really dead. Medical praotitioners are now afforded protection by clause 3.

I am also grateful that in clause 7 protection is being afforded to minors and mentally disordered or defective persons against undesirable practices against the person of such people.

In clause 9 protection is being afforded to medical practitioners or magistrates acting in good faith by removing tissue or consenting to the removal of tissue for the purposes stated in clause 2.

In clause 10 we find a prohibition in terms of which the tissue or organs of a donor may not be hawked, neither by himself nor by persons authorized to bequeathe some of his organs for transplantation purposes.

In clause 14 the donor and the recipient are being safeguarded against any undesirable publicity. We felt that it was the right of the individual to say whether he wanted any publicity to be given to the fact that he was a donor or that he received such an organ.

I do not want to say any more, I think the matter has already been dealt with quite fully. The legislation is clear and simple. In conclusion I just want to say that I am sure and convinced that medical men and the public outside will be very grateful for this legislation which is before the House to-day.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Bill we are considering here has once again made all of us realize how great the achievements are which this small nation on the southernmost tip of Africa has accomplished in the sphere of medicine as it has also done in so many other spheres of life. It is with deep gratitude that one thinks of this achievement. That is why I think it would be fitting for me to mention merely in passing to hon. members who have been cloistered here in this House in order to give their attention to this Bill, that after we were 480 runs ahead after the second innings, the present score is 48 for 3.

Order! That does not fall within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall drop that topic immediately.

Sir, then I think you will also permit me to tell the hon. member for Geduld, who was also a member of this Select Committee, that in view of his practical experience of medicine extending over many years, this probably was to him not only an opportunity to render a service, but also, as medical practitioner. a great privilege to serve on a select committee of this very nature. I find it striking that this was the very aspect he singled out, namely the aspect of good faith, which may not always be appreciated by the public outside. I think we must accept—and this is in fact the basis of this legislation—that with all scientists the point of departure should always be the welfare and the well-being of the patient. I am grateful that this has also been written into this legislation and that the hon. member mentioned it.

As regards the hon. member for Prinshof, who was chairman of the Select Committee. I want to say that I am particularly grateful to him for having mentioned the officials of my Department as well as this House, for one does not always realize how much work they have to do on the quiet. The hon. member referred to the publicity aspect. I think that, also as far as this is concerned, we have found a formula for entrenching the rights of the individual with regard to the donor as well as the recipient. There can be no doubt that this legislation is not only farsighted, but also modern.

†I should like to thank the hon. member for Rosettenville for his support for this Bill and also join with him in his appeal for more funds for research. This Bill has two aspects; the research aspect, but also the aspect of alleviation of suffering and, in many instances, the cure of certain ailments. I think this aspect should be underlined in this particular discussion, namely the question of bringing happiness, not only to those who are suffering, but also to their relatives and friends.

According to what we have decided on Friday, it is possible to take all the stages of this Bill in one day, but I do not propose to do that. Certain members have been kind enough to come forward to give their amendments to it. I should like to give the most careful and thorough consideration to these amendments. Therefore I propose to take the Committee Stage only to-morrow. I may, however, say that I would be extremely reluctant, unless there are very good reasons, to make amendments to a measure which was unanimously decided upon by all members of the Committee after very careful consideration. But nevertheless, I will give my very careful and thorough consideration to these amendments which members have kindly brought to my notice.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) raised the question of blood transfusion and made the point that blood transfusion in itself is a transplant, a donation of human blood. I should like to take this opportunity to point out that very few transplants of other organs are in reality possible without blood transfusion. It is almost a sine qua non of any transplant. He also made the point that we have a shortage of blood, and especially of certain types of blood. I should like to say here to-day that blood in South Africa is available for all the nations in our country, irrespective of colour. But unfortunately for many reasons which are understandable, most of the blood which is donated, comes from the white nation in South Africa. I should like to make a very strong appeal to-day to all the non-white nations in our country to come forward as donors of human blood. I should like to point out to them that to donate blood, is a completely painless procedure. It leaves no ill effects whatsoever and in many cases improves the health of the donor.

Moreover, I think it is necessary to say that in a number of ailments the donation of blood is a specific treatment for those ailments. In some cases it is a complete cure. I should also like to point out that the greatest care is taken before blood is donated by any person. Perhaps it is not always realized that every one who is prepared to donate blood is very thoroughly examined by experts, this is done completely free of charge. Certain pathological tests are even carried out which are also performed free of charge and which are also to the benefit of donors. I have dwelt on these points for a few moments because I do feel that it should be brought to the notice of all the nations in our country that here is really an opportunity to be of service to our fellow-men. This is an opportunity for all the people in. South Africa. I want to thank the hon. member for his support and for bringing this very important point to the notice of the House this afternoon.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members are possibly aware of the fact that a group of private persons established a utility company with the object of buying up land on which important South African battles were fought, in order to reconstruct the battlefields thereon and then to hand it over to the National Monuments Council to preserve and maintain it for posterity.

The correct locations and the details of the reconstruction will be determined by the company in consultation with the council and other authoritative historians. In carrying out this and similar undertakings one must expect obstacles will be encountered, most of which can be eliminated through the application of common sense and discretion. Cases may occur, however, where a solution within the framework of existing legislation is well-nigh impossible. Experience has shown, for example, that where large-scale subdivision of land has taken place, it is an impossible task to trace all the owners and come to an agreement with them individually within a measurable space of time. Because of this, and as a result of the inability of the council to act timeously in such cases, the opportunity of preserving some of our most valuable cultural possessions for posterity is lost. As an example in this connection one may mention the problems which the National Monuments Council experienced years ago in the case of Lindley House in Pietermaritzburg when it had no powers of expropriation and was unable to prevent this historical building from being demolished.

Section 5 of the National Monuments Act (Act No. 28 of 1969) provides that the Council may buy, own, hire, let, etc., immovable property. That Act and the Expropriation Act (Act No. 55 of 1965) do not, however, provide that property of aesthetic, historical, archaeological, paleontological or scientific interest in the national sense, may be expropriated in favour of the council. In order to enable the council to fulfil its difficult task, it is deemed necessary to provide for the expropriation of fixed property which has been or is about to be declared a national monument. It may be mentioned that the council supports the Bill wholeheartedly.

The Bill provides for the expropriation of immovable property in terms of the Expropriation Act (Act No. 55 of 1965) for the purposes of the National Monuments Council. As will be noticed, the wording of the Bill agrees with that of section 23ter of the Universities Act (Act No. 61 of 1955) and section 23 pf the Advanced Technical Education Act (Act No. 40 of 1967). It will further be noticed that expropriation will take place not only in favour of the council, but also at its cost. As hon. members will gather from the aforementioned, it will be necessary to make use of the powers granted by this Bill in only a few cases, particularly exceptional ones. Moreover, I give the assurance that the powers will be used only if all reasonable attempts to come to an agreement with. the owner have proved fruitless. Important national monuments cannot, however, be allowed to be lost because the council is not vested with sufficient powers to act when circumstances necessitate it.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support this Bill in principle. We realize that there will be cases where the department will have to have the powers which the hon. the Minister is asking for here. There is, of course, doubt in the minds of some of us as to whether the council will not in some case perhaps act unreasonably. Another hon. member will possibly say a few words about this and I would be glad if the hon. the Minister could give us the assurance that the powers granted by this Bill will not be used unfairly.

This Bill does not allow of a wide discussion, but there is nevertheless one matter which I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. I am referring to the question of a memorial tomb for prisoners of war who died during the Second War of Independence (1899-1902). I know that this matter will be covered by this Bill and that the hon. the Minister has already made good progress as regards accepting the principle of erecting such a memorial tomb. As hon. members know, quite a few prisoners of war died abroad. Some of us have seen some of those graves. One hopes that when the Government takes over that land on behalf of the council, it will ensure that these monuments will not be cold gathering-places, but will be something living. What I have in mind, for example, is that the mortal remains of a prisoner of war can be brought from abroad and that such a tomb, as that of “the unknown soldier”, can represent that of any. person who died as prisoner of war.

Mr. Speaker, I know you will not allow me to enlarge on this, but I do want to raise a third question, i.e. the neglect of such graves of prisoners of war abroad. Although this matter is not actually covered by this Bill, I hope that the hon. the Minister will give serious attention to it in the future. I think it needs to be said that the budget of Ceylon includes an annual amount which is used for the maintenance of the graves of Boer prisoners of war who died there.

Mr. Speaker, it was not clear from the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech what land this measure is intended to expropriate. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us some examples in his reply. He gave an example of property, but I presume from the wording of this Bill that it is intended that land can be expropriated. It has been suggested that land which has become famous in South Africa as battlefields or special scenes where there has been conflict in the country might be expropriated. One has to think of the example in Canada, where they have the famous monument at Quebec to General Wolfe and to General Montcalm. That, for many years, was regarded as a very fine monument. However, to-day there are people who find it unpopular. I hope that the hon. the Minister, in considering any of these requests for expropriation, will bear in mind not only what we think to-day, but what our people, our children and our grandchildren will think in 50 years’ time, or as we usually say, at the turn of the century. I personally, in visiting other countries, have seen many battlefields. But there has never been an attempt to preserve them in the original state. I do not know what the intention is here and what has been suggested. One should consider these attempts to expropriate very carefully.

Another point which I should like to mention is the operation of this Bill. I take it from the wording that the Monuments Committee will first get in touch with the Minister of National Education and after that, will consult with the Minister of Agriculture. Will that be the procedure? Will they first come to the Department of Cultural Affairs and, after that, will there be a consultation between the Minister of National Education and the Minister of Agriculture? I presume that is how it will operate. I hope that, in his reply, the hon. the Minister will explain to us how these requests will be implemented.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detract at all from our support of this measure. However, there are one or two points which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. I would be grateful if he would reply to them.

First of all, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is possible that the powers of the council could be delegated to another body. As far as I can see, it is not possible. The council cannot delegate its powers. However, if this is so, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of a private company which is negotiating to purchase a particular battlefield, that I have in mind. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to explain to us how it is that a private company can have these powers. I ask in particular because if one reads the Bill and remembers what the hon. the Minister said in his second-reading speech, it does not line up with the information I have. The Bill states that any land may be expropriated for the benefit of the council provided the council has satisfied the Minister that it is unable to acquire such land on reasonable terms. In his second-reading speech the hon. the Minister said every reasonable effort would be made before these rights are taken under this Bill. However, as I have said, this does not line up with the information that I have in regard to the battlefield of Blood River. I rise particularly to bring this particular point to the hon. the Minister. If this is the sort of thing that can happen, I believe the hon. the Minister should be made aware of it so that it can be brought to a very quick halt. The owners of the farm where the Battle of Blood River took place, were approached by a private company to sell the farm to them. They were hesitant to negotiate with this private company, but they were prepared to co-operate with the council. This private company informed the owner that it was in fact operating with the full knowledge of the Monuments Council. This is why I believe that this is a matter for the hon. the Minister to handle. I have a transcription of an interview conducted by the attorneys of the owners with a member of this body. He makes such claims in this transcription as that if the owners refuse to sell the farm, they will use sledge-hammer tactics. In this interview he says that he does not make idle threats; that he is working in close co-operation with the Prime Minister and that the Prime Minister has promised him this Bill before the end of this Session. That is why he says that, if the owners do not sell, he can expropriate. I will give the hon. the Minister a copy of the transcript of this interview if he wishes. It was taken from a tape-recording. I will let him have this and he can see for himself that the tactics used by these people certainly do not line up with the views that he expressed now in his second-reading speech. I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that the owners concerned are only too willing to co-operate with the National Monuments Commission. That has never been in question. They have pointed out one or two differences. For instance, they do not necessarily agree that the team of experts have settled the actual site of the battle. However, that is not a matter for me to raise here. I want to emphasize the fact that they are willing to co-operate. But I do suggest that the National Monuments Commission should handle this matter themselves, because this private company has used threats against the owners of this farm.

And reduced the price.

Yes. I believe the hon. the Minister should answer some of the points which I have raised.

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, we on this side of the House want to support this Bill. We believe it is necessary. There will probably be cases where expropriation will have to take place. Of course, we also want to draw attention to the fact that something like that must be done very carefully. We have already heard of cases in which such careful action was not taken. If this is in fact the case, the matter must be investigated very thoroughly. The National Monuments Commission must have the right to expropriate land where it is really necessary, but these powers must be used very carefully.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a short question to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister did refer in his motivation for this legislation before us, to the possibility of the expropriation of battlefields monuments. I wonder why the hon. the Minister has thought it necessary to bring the control of the battlefield monuments under the National Monuments Council and not to utilize the National War Graves Board which has been established, as the hon. the Minister knows, to deal with not only the maintenance of memorials and war graves appertaining to past conflicts in South Africa, but also to establish gardens of remembrance and the like in various parts of the Republic. Therefore, the hon. the Minister will be aware of the extent of the work that has already been done by the board. One would have imagined that this offer which the hon. the Minister referred to, the offer of private persons to finance further monuments which are connected with the war history of South Africa, might well have been entrusted to the War Graves Board. The control, management and establishment of these monuments might have existed more happily within the purview of the War Graves Board rather than under the National Monuments Commission’s control. I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate to us why that particular line of authority was not considered as more appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to express my sincere thanks to the hon. the Opposition for the support which they have given to this Bill. I think the matter concerned here is one which is close to the hearts of all of us. We can therefore see eye to eye on it. I immediately want to give hon. members on the other side of the House as well as hon. members on this side of the House the assurance that these powers of expropriation will be used with the greatest discretion and care. In fact, I believe that powers of expropriation must at all times be used with great caution. No one likes to be deprived of his property, and even less so if it is done in an unreasonable way.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask file hon. the Minister a question? What body will actually exercise the powers of expropriation, if they are found necessary?

Mr. Speaker. I shall come to that. In the first place I therefore give my assurance that any action that is taken will be taken judiciously. The procedure being prescribed is that the National Monuments Council will continue to do its work in terms of the Act which established it. It means that an investigation is first instituted as to whether such a place is of historal, aesthetic or archaeological value to the country in a national sense. If it is satisfied that that is the position, provisional notice is given to the owner of such a place that the property is under provisional declaration as a national monument. This means that for a period of three years negotiations can take place to have the monument, memorial or whatever the case may be, finally declared a national monument. The problem with the existing legislation is in fact that in the meantime a great deal can happen which can frustrate the best intentions of the council in this connection.

I now want to refer to the powers of expropriation. What is going to happen here, is that the National Monuments Council will continue with its task as laid down in the Act. When the council encounters obstacles which cannot be removed within the framework of the legislation concerned, it reports to the Minister of National Education, who will, in consultation with the Minister of finance, address a request to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. From that stage onwards the procedure followed is as defined by the Expropriation Act. In other words, the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure will do the expropriation. They will do it on behalf of and at the expense of the National Monuments Council. The National Monuments Council will, in other words, become the owner of that expropriated property. I think that answers the question of the hon. member for South Coast.

I should like to refer to the representations made by the hon. member for Sea Point in connection with a memorial tomb. I want to tell him that the Cabinet has already approved in principle that a memorial tomb may be erected, but the details in that connection is something about which no decision has been taken yet. The War Graves Board must put forward concrete proposals and when these are received, the Cabinet will consider which of them, it can agree to. I may just say that I am aware of the fact that the hon. member for Sea Point already made representations to my predecessor in this connection. There are, of course, major obstacles in connection with those suggestions made by him. The obstacles will arise from the fact that it will involve negotiations with foreign powers. I think the hon. member must in the meantime content himself with the fact that we are aware of these suggestions. When the plan of the War Graves Board is submitted to us, we can go into the matter further.

The hon. member for Kensington asked what the procedure in connection with expropriation will be. I think I have already replied to that in part. He also warned that great care should be taken not to expropriate land for the erection of some memorial or other which in later years will no longer meet with the approval of certain people or of certain sections of the population. This matter which the hon. member raised is a very substantial one and I think I shall be able to satisfy him if I say that the National Monuments Council, which is composed of historians, will provide the best guidance here. It goes without saying that they will take care that sites are not expropriated and memorials are not erected which may subsequently be regretted.

The hon. member for Port Natal also sounded a note of warning in connection with expropriation. He furnished information about attempts allegedly being made in Natal to obtain portions of the Blood River site. If the position is as the hon. member stated, and I readily accept that he would not make a wild statement about this matter to the House, I must say that the persons or bodies that did that probably acted injudiciously in that connection. I should like to go into the matter and try to put a stop to it. It stands to reason that I cannot prevent speculators who got wind of this scheme as a result of newspaper reports, from trying to obtain land. I do not know whether this is the case to which the hon. member referred, but there is such a possibility as well. I think I can satisfy the hon. member by saying that where the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure necessarily had to expropriate property, they have always been reasonable. In most cases of which I know, the owners of such land were satisfied with the negotiations, which were conducted on this high level. I can give the hon. member the assurance that that will happen in this case as well. If there have been abuses before, I am sorry. The hon. member will realize that I have no control over that, but I shall try to put a stop to them if they do occur.

The hon. member for Gardens also sounded a note of warning and I think I have already replied to him as well. I can assure him that we will act judiciously and carefully.

The hon. member for Green Point asked why the War Graves Board could not deal with this matter. It is a fact that both these bodies exist, but each of them has different functions entrusted to it by the Act which established it. The task of the National Monuments Council is to declare national monuments and to preserve them for posterity. This is not specifically the task of the War Graves Board. The distinction was in fact drawn by the Act and therefore we have to follow this pattern.

I think I have replied to all the questions asked by hon. members and I want to express my thanks once again to the hon. members on the other side of the House for the support I have received from them in connection with this measure.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the amendments contained in this Bill became necessary as a result of one important factor, i.e. a change in the price structure in the wine industry. Since the passing of the Amendment Act of 1940, whereby control over good wine was introduced in the industry, up to and including 1947, the price of good wine was quite a bit less than that of distilling wine. Subsequently the price of good wine was fixed at a level higher than that for distilling wine, but up to 1962 the difference was, however, very slight.

After 1962 the discrepancy between the two prices increased considerably, in favour of good wine. As a result of this provision must now be made in certain cases for problems resulting from the price adjustments. The annually fixed price for good wine applies to wine of a strength of up to 20 per cent proof spirit. However, at present the Act provides that an additional amount must be paid per leaguer for each 1 per cent that good wine exceeds 20 per cent proof spirit in strength. Up to now this additional amount was calculated on the distilling wine price less the levies upon surplus contributions made by K.W.V. members in respect of the surplus distilling wine. It is now proposed that the aforementioned amount shall in future be calculated on the total distilling wine price, i.e. before deductions of the surplus amount. For the additional alcohol in good wine above 20 per cent proof spirit, at least the distilling wine price will consequently have to be paid. This is obviously the price traders would otherwise have had to pay if they themselves had bought the alcohol and added it to the good wine. This proposed amendment is a direct consequence of the changed circumstances that have set in during recent years with respect to the price structure to which I have already referred.

A procedure and principle that has always applied in the wine industry in respect of good wine, i.e. that the trade receives wine from the wine farmer or the co-operative cellar, is, in addition, merely being clarified in the Bill. Neither will the wine producer be allowed to make any contribution to the costs of the transport of his wine by the trade, except in the circumstances described in the Bill. In this connection it is proposed that a producer, situated far from the premises of a trader, can be authorized by the K.W.V. to make a contribution to the costs of transporting his good wine. This will only be possible if the wine is to be transported over a greater distance than a distance prescribed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette. The contribution will also be determined on a basis and upon conditions approved by the Minister, and there shall, in addition, be a right of appeal to the Minister in cases where the K.W.V. refuses to allow a contribution to the transport costs of the wine in the circumstances for which provision is being made.

In transactions where one producer buys grapes from another producer, the Act at present merely provides that the price may not be less than the distilling wine price less the surplus contribution. As a result of the increases in the price of good wine since 1940, this price for grapes is no longer a realistic one. Such grapes are purchased for the making of good wine, and if grapes for this purpose are purchased at the distilling wine price (which is already quite a bit less than the good wine price) minus the surplus contribution as well, it enables the purchaser to make considerable profits. No wonder, therefore, that the situation is now being exploited in that traders, by means of related producer-organizations, are obtaining large quantities of grapes in this way. The financial advantage obtained by such traders over other traders, who only purchase their wines from producers, is not beneficial to the wine industry.

In this Bill provision is now being made for the price of grapes to be based on the price for good wine and that all such transactions for the purchasing of grapes should take place through the agency of the K.W.V. In addition, provision is made for the K.W.V., with the approval of the Minister, to fix an amount in any year by which the above-mentioned price can be reduced. The Minister can also, in any year, instruct the K.W.V. to submit proposals to him in respect of such a deduction for that year. The intention is that if it should appear that the proposed price would possibly entail hardships for producers, the price could be fixed at a lower level than the good wine price for the year concerned. Interested parties will be granted the opportunity of objecting to the Minister about the amount of the price reduction which the K.W.V. may suggest.

An additional new provision is that the fixing of the price of distilling wine, as is. the case already with good wine, will now also be subject to the Minister’s approval. Provision is being made for the submission of objections against the distilling wine price which the K.W.V. may suggest, and the procedure to be followed in this connection is the same as that in respect of good wine.

Wine farmers and co-operative societies will now be prohibited from purchasing distilling wine from other wine farmers or co-operative societies. The object here is to prevent evasions and manipulations, for example where grapes are also bought by one wine farmer from another for good wine purposes and where such grapes are pressed together with the farmer’s own grapes.

With a view to preventing any misuse of the concession which the Act at present contains in respect of the right of appeal of someone whose interests are affected by a decision of the K.W.V., it is proposed that such right of appeal shall fall away if the appellant were to neglect to nominate his representative on the board of appeal within a fixed time. It is further proposed that authority be granted for the issuing of regulations whereby the procedure for the obtaining of the Minister’s approval and the lodging and prosecution of appeals can be prescribed.

In the light of the fact that it has already been decided to submit all the wine-marketing Acts to Parliament for consolidation and incorporation into one Act, it is first necessary for a number of technical amendments to be made in the Acts concerned, before consolidation takes place.

Mr. Speaker, we support this Bill. The Acts that are to be amended by this Bill have a bearing on the regulation of the production of wine and spirituous liquor from the vine and also on the marketing of those products by their producers. It is legislation that is trying to ensure the orderly production and marketing of these products, and it includes regulations and prescriptions applied and implemented by the Koöperatiewe Wijnbouwersvereniging van Z.A. Beperk (commonly known as K.W.V.). In passing it is interesting to note that the K.W.V. is an organization which had its origins here in our country, having been created in 1917 by our previous generation of wine farmers themselves in order to try and overcome the great problems they were faced with at the time. The organization was registered as a company at the beginning of 1918 because at the time there was, of course, no Act that made provision for the registration of cooperative organizations. Such an Act was only to come onto the Statute Book in 1922. But what is illuminating is that, although most of our previous generations of wine farmers came from the wine-producing countries of Europe, there is nothing at all like the K.W.V. in any of those countries.

It is therefore not modelled on anything for which there is or was a precedent in any of those countries, or even elsewhere. I understand further that there are many of those countries that would very much have liked something like that. In many of the countries, so I am told, there is a total lack of this kind of control and of such an organization to apply that control at producer-level. The State itself must regulate the industry and it costs the governments of those wine-producing countries a very great deal of money. Here in the Republic this industry stands on its own feet. It receives little or no financial support from the State and must simply tackle and solve its own problems and, in most cases, see how best to fend for itself. However, what the State does rather well is to tax the industry’s products …

Order! Has this anything to do with the Bill?

Yes, it does. I just want to try to indicate that in this Bill we are consolidating the powers of the K.W.V. The K.W.V. asks no assistance from the Government. I am glad that the hon. the Minister has come along with this Bill. I am just trying to indicate that the K.W.V. is only asking for the powers it already has, and in reality it is giving some of its powers back to the Minister, as I shall indicate in a moment.

I hope the hon. member will confine himself to the Bill.

I have already said that we receive little or no financial support in South Africa for the organization of this important industry, and neither do we ask for it. I am merely mentioning the fact that we receive little assistance. But what the State, of course, does is to tax us heavily, and we do not have any objection to that either.

Order! The hon. member is now completely outside the scope of the Bill.

When the K.W.V. started, the tax was 10 cents a bottle and now it is R1 a bottle.

That is also out of order.

If I may not speak about taxes, let me then just say that the least that can be done is to adjust the necessary authorizations by legislation from time to time in order to help the industry to overcome, through the proper regulation of its affairs, problems which arise in the course of time and with changing circumstances. And this is also what this Bill proposes to do. Sir, that the regulation of the measure of control applied in the industry is being supplemented by legislation is also nothing new. The K.W.V. is a voluntary organization, a co-operative, and as far back as the. early twenties it was clear that certain regulations in respect of turn over were not only to be binding on members of the K.W.V. (because as a co-operative society they can only bind their own members) but that important regulations, such as those in respect of the price, should also be applicable to non-members. This had to be done by legislation. This was also the first legislation that had to help stabilize the industry, and this legislation was laid down by Act No. 5 of 1924, which was piloted through Parliament at the time by none other than the then Prime Minister himself, General Smuts.

Order! What the hon. member is reading there has no bearing on this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it does have a bearing. I can only come to the conclusion that you are not as well acquainted with the provisions of the Bill as I am. May I just tell you what General Smuts said at the time.

On a point of order, Sir, may I ask the hon. member whether it is Colin Eglin’s speech that he is now quoting there?

Mr. Speaker, if corporal Potgieter cannot make any more significant remarks I am going to strip him of his rank and make an ordinary private of him. Before we had this Act that we want to amend to-day, General Smuts said in the twenties …

General Smuts said many things that have nothing to do with this Bill.

The difference between that side of the House and this side is that if they had paid more attention to General Smuts in the past we would not have been in the wretched situation we are in now. I do not think that what I am now saying here has anything to do with the Bill, but General Smuts’ remarks, from which I want to quote, do indeed have something to do with it. Mr. Speaker, may I quote this?

Those things have already been said and there is no need to repeat them.

When, Sir?

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

I just want to point out that when General Smuts introduced the Bill he specifically foresaw this kind of legislation and such meetings. When he made provision for the establishment of the K.W.V. in the legislation of the time, he empowered the K.W.V. to regulate its own affairs. This Bill is merely a continuation of that in order to empower the K.W.V. to regulate its own affairs, and therefore we support it.

Then I should like to deal with the particular clauses of the Bill. I shall not say again that General Smuts spoke about that …

Order! The hon. member may do so in the Committee Stage.

I do not want to move amendments. I just want to say that we welcome certain amendments introduced here, and for that reason we shall vote for the Bill. If you want us to oppose it we can do that as well. However, I would rather like to support this Bill; the Minister would also like it. Mr. Speaker, these wine Acts are complicated. The hon. the Minister spoke here of good wine. I did not want to get him into trouble, Sir, but you are now going to cause this to happen, because I am now going to ask him what the difference is between good wine and bad wine. They come from the same cask. This whole matter is a complicated one. Powers are now being granted here for the purchaser of good wine to be compensated for his transport costs if he lives sufficiently far away. All this Bill means—and that is why I am supporting it— is that the purchaser must buy so much good wine and so much distilling wine; it can come from the same cask. Previously there was discrimination against farmers who lived far from the distilleries. We are grateful that the Minister is now granting the powers for that person’s transport costs to be repaid to him. People situated far from the distillery will now also have the benefit of good wine prices. Do you now see. Mr. Speaker, how complicated the matter is? It is not simply any man who can come along here and speak about this kind of matter.

There is only one aspect of the Bill that bothers us a little. It does not actually bother us. but we would nevertheless like to tell the hon. the Minister to watch his step. I refer to the powers the Minister is now adopting in connection with the fixing of prices. Previously the K.W.V. fixed the prices. It is indeed true that the Minister could fix the prices of so-called good wine since 1958, if I remember correctly. The Minister now has the power to fix the prices of all wines. We shall trust him with that power. [Interjections.] Yes, we shall trust him but we shall be looking to see how he behaves himself. I just want to say that when the K.W.V. alone had that power—and it had it for many years—it used that power in such a way, if I remember correctly, that there was only one appeal in all the years of the liquor trade. There was only one appeal and that was decided in favour of the K.W.V. Since the Minister makes so much money from this industry, we just want to ask him not to poke his nose unnecessarily into the affairs of the wine farmers. I think this is a very reasonable request. The K.W.V. has a proud record —more so than this Government’s record.

Order! I think the hon. member has said enough now.

I just want the hon. the Minister to know that he must watch his step.

The hon. member for Sea Point, who has just resumed his seat, went back a long way to quote what General Smuts said. I wonder if he should not have gone back a little further because Noah also said something about wine. Sir, I shall not go back that far. The hon. member tried to get in a sidelong jab by saying that the Government was doing nothing for the wine farmer at all. He was with me in this House when, a few years ago, this Government made no less than R500,000 available for research and for the development of the wine industry. How can he then say that this Government is doing nothing for the wine industry? I want to emphasize that this Bill is a result of direct requests from the K.W.V. The K.W.V. Board is different in its composition to a control board; it is exclusively composed of wine farmers, producers, people who want to do nothing but promote and serve the interests of the wine industry. And let me simply make it clear now. They are leaders of the wine farmers, and just as high winds blow on high hills, they are also criticized, and there are also wine farmers who criticize their actions, but the broad stratum of wine farmers supports these directors of the K.W.V. and will also support them in requesting this Bill. That is also why the members representing wine districts here, heartily support this Bill. But these changes requested in the Bill have become very necessary because the whole pattern of wine production has changed so remarkably in recent years. It is with a measure of nostalgia that we must take leave of one estate wine producer after another. I am thinking, for example, of one of the most palatable red wines I have ever tasted, the 1954 Zonnebloem Cabernet. That farm is no longer making wine to-day, and we must nostalgically take leave of this famous wine maker of a decade ago. Conditions have changed so much now that a very great deal, of capital is necessary for the making of good wine.

Order! The hon. member is going too far. He is replying to the hon. member for Sea Point, who was completely out of order.

It is because changes have come to pass here that this Bill is necessary, because the individual wine farmer can no longer muster the capital to make good wine. The hon. member for Sea Point asked the hon. the Deputy Minister what good wine is. and he spoke of good wine and distilling wine that came from the same cask. Sir, good wine, as defined by the Act, means wine that is used as wine, while distilling wine can be any wine that is distilled. But good wine is that wine which is used as wine. A trader who distills wine can also use good wine to distill brandy. He is at liberty to purchase good wine and to do with it whatever he wants to, but if he then distills it he must pay the relevant price.

What relevant price?

Order! The hon. member may continue. I would be glad if he would just confine himself to the Bill.

What a dreary wine party this is.

I said that these changes had become very necessary, because in the course of time it is only the wine cooperatives making wine, and recently more and more traders, who buy grapes and then make wine from them. But now there has been an additional new development, i.e. that traders no longer buy the grapes; they buy the sweet must, the unfermented grape juice, from the farmer, and from that they then manufacture wine. Up to a few years ago only mechanical refrigeration was necessary for the manufacture of very good wine, but then a new fashion set in. Everyone now wants to drink this sweetish, light wine, the wine which is wrongly called a Stein type. I say wrongly, because to make this new kind of wine it is also necessary to have expensive calefactory apparatus in those cellars.

Order! The hon. member is going too far now.

Sir, I shall defer to your decision immediately, because I now realize that you cannot appreciate a good wine. [Laughter.]

But I do appreciate a speech that is within the limits of the Bill. [Laughter.]

It is specifically this Bill that makes it possible for us to obtain the very best wines without the farmer being exploited. That is why we support this Bill so fervently, in the full confidence that it will be passed without opposition.

I am grateful to the Opposition for supporting the Bill. There is only one point, to which the hon. member for Sea Point referred, that has not been replied to yet, i.e. that in 1924 the tax on a bottle of wine was 10 cents. This is true, but I have ascertained that in 1924 the price of a bottle of Limosin was a little more than 30 cents. So the tax-price relationship between was more or less the same as it is to-day. We cannot actually wrench the position out of context and look at what happened in 1924.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

There is no need for me to make a lengthy speech on this measure. From the nature of the case the proposals are not contentious. Existing rights or privileges of pensioners or officials are not being adversely affected. On the contrary, as is usual under a good Government such as this one, additional rights and improved privileges are continually being added.

However, I want to deal briefly with the provisions for the information of hon. members.

The Provincial Powers Extension Act empowers the Provincial Councils to make ordinances as regards pensions for members or the widows of members of a provincial council or an executive committee, but limit these pensions to half of the yearly allowance of a member. The maximum pension a member of an executive committee can earn for himself, was increased to R6,000 per year with effect from 1st September, 1969, which is more than the permissible half of his annual allowances. The Provincial ordinances will, therefore, have to be amended to provide for the new maximum pensions, but this cannot be done until such time as the limit in the said Act has been suspended or at least relaxed. In order to follow the pattern of the Parliamentary pension scheme, clause 1 is intended to enable the provincial authorities to bring the maximum pensions into line with the annual allowance if they deem it necessary to do so.

In drawing up section 6 (13A), inserted in the Government Service Pensions Act, 1965, last year, it was accepted that the Durban Corporation Telephone Employees Transfer Act, 1969, would come into operation on 1st April. 1969. However, the said Act only came into operation on the date of proclamation (27th June, 1969), and clause 2 will rectify the position. In order to facilitate administration the reference to the Public Service Commission in sections 8 (5) and 8 (6) of the Government Service Pensions Act, 1965, is being deleted in clause 3 at the request of the Department of Prisons. The Public Service Commission and the Commissioner of Police are agreed on this.

The Parliamentary pension scheme, as it exists at present, makes no provision for the payment of benefits to minor children of a member and members of the scheme are quite rightly concerned about the position in which such children will find themselves in case both parents should die. It has therefore been decided that pensions and other benefits should be paid under the Parliamentary Pension Scheme to minor children of a member who dies in service and who does not leave behind a widow. Provision is being made in this respect in clauses 4, 5 and 7, while consequential amendments are contained in clauses 6, 8, 9 and 10. The provisions of the Bill as regards this matter were agreed to after consultation with the members of both sides of this House, and I trust that these will meet with general support. In this connection I should like to add that the proposed provisions can also be construed as applying to minor children of female members.

Hon. members will note that a minor amendment is being effected to the definition of ’ “commissioner general” under clause 4. which has, however, nothing to do with the said concessions as regards children, but is necessary in order to retain the pension rights in the case of a person appointed directly from parliamentary ranks to serve in that position in the territory of South West Africa.

In terms of clause 11 the bonus payable in respect of war pensions is being increased from 10 per cent to 12½ per cent, as has been announced.

Certain female teachers on the temporary staff belonged to the provincial pension funds for many years, but were at the time of the establishment of the Provincial and Territory Service Pension Fund on 1st April, 1969, excluded from membership of that fund by virtue of the fact that they were being appointed in a temporary capacity. The relevant Act only provides for the refund of personal contributions made prior to 1st April, 1969, plus interest. Such persons are now afforded the opportunity in terms of clause 12 to become members of the said fund but limits their benefits to those they were entitled to prior to 1st April, 1969, while affording them the choice to have the contributions paid back to them if they so desire.

Certain institutions, the staff of which were members of I provincial pension funds were, with effect from 1st April, 1969. established as schools or declared aided schools in terms of the Educational Services Act, 1967. Section 21 of the Pensions Laws Amendment Act, 1969, provides, in the first place, for the retention of pensions rights and for the age of retirement of persons who were employed with such institutions on 31st March, 1969. Since all provincial funds were incorporated in the Provincial and the Territory Service Pension Fund on 1st April, 1969, the moneys of the said persons are merely being kept in that fund and they are not members of that fund in the true sense of the word. In the second place, they could decide whether they wanted to become members of the Public Service Pension Fund, in which case the benefits would be transferred to the latter fund. To be able to do this, such a person must be deemed to have been a member of the Provincial and Territory Pension Fund, and provision for this is now being made in terms of clause 13 (1) (a). The present provision does not provide for the retention of ages of retirement in the case of somebody who has decided to become a member of the Public Service Pension Fund, and the insertion under clause 13 (1) (b) is therefore required for this purpose.

Except for other minor amendments to facilitate implementation and administration, clause 14 mainly provides for the extension of the scheme for the payment of temporary allowances also with effect from 1st April, 1970, to retired members of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund and members of the provident funds for technical colleges and universities who are in receipt of annuities.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened with interest to the hon. the Minister introducing the Bill that is now before the House. We on this side of the House intend supporting the Bill at the Second Reading and in all its stages. We believe that this Bill is one which brings about improvements in the administration of the various Acts it aims to amend and also incorporates improvements which were announced by the Minister of finance during the Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill. We believe that it is important, where administrative difficulties are experienced,, that they should be rectified as soon as possible. That is why we are particularly pleased to see that the amendments which have been made to the Provincial and the Territory Service Pension Act will eliminate certain difficulties that have arisen, although this Act was only passed by this House last year.

We believe that the proposed amendment to the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pension Act is also an important provision. Where dependent children, whose parents are members of one of the Houses of Parliament, are deprived of their support, provision is now being made for a payment to be made to these children from-the Parliamentary Service Pension Fund. This is a provision which exists in other pension Acts and it is only right and just that such a provision should be made under the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act, so that such an eventuality, if it should arise can be met.

There is one particular aspect of the Bill upon which I should like to pass further comment. In terms of the statement made by the Minister of finance during the Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill, provision was made for increases of social pensions and also for the consolidation of a certain part of the bonus, which would bring about the relaxation of the means test. This is obviously now done by regulation. It is therefore not possible for me to discuss these matters as they are not before the House. However, in terms of one of the clauses, namely clause 11 of this Bill, provision is made to give legislative effect to one of the proposals made by the hon. the Minister of finance. Here I refer to the proposed increase in bonuses. If we look at the position of military pensioners, we notice that there are two Acts which govern the payment of war disablement pensions, namely the War Special Pensions Act, 1962, which deals with wars prior to and including the 1914-’18 war, and the war Pensions Act of 1967, which deals with other disablement pensions paid to certain other categories of ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen. If we look at this position we see that improvements have been made over the years. Certainly in 1965, when a consolidation took place, there Was a considerable improvement in the pensions being paid io these various groups.

The position since then has, however, not been quite as satisfactory as we believe it should have been. The principle of paying a bonus as contained in clause 11 is one which we endeavour to get away from so that wherever possible such bonuses can be consolidated with the basic amounts. In 1968 the bonus of 10 per cent was granted by this House. The Bill before us now intends increasing this bonus to I2i per cent but first and foremost we are extremely disappointed that it is only possible that this bonus should be increased by only 2½ per cent of the payment that is made. If you look at the number of military pensioners that is involved, you find that it is not a large number in comparison with other groups of pensioners. Approximately 20,000 such persons are receiving pensions and thereby qualify for the increased bonus for which this Bill provides. It seems a pity that it was not possible to pay a more generous bonus to this particular group of pensioners. I should like briefly to draw a comparison between the war-disabled pensioners who will receive this increase and social pensioners. In 1968 social pensions were also increased by R1 per month. They were increased again in 1969 and in 1970 a further increase is to come into operation as from the 1st April. Old-age pensions for instance, increased from R32, in 1968. to R35 per month which was an increase of R3 per month. This represents an increase of just less than 9 per cent. In 1968 the pensions of war veterans were increased from R40 to R43 per month in 1970. This represents a per cent increase in pension. The group whose bonus is to be increased by this Bill, however, received no increase whatsoever during 1969. They did receive the original 10 per cent increase in 1968, but the increase of this bonus now to 12½ per cent means a net increase of only 21/4 per cent, if one makes a percentage calculation. This Bill therefore only provides for a net increase of 21/4 per cent as far as their war-disablement pensions are concerned whereas the other groups of pensioners have received increases far in excess of this amount. I hope that the hon. the Minister can perhaps give us an explanation as to why this group should appear to have been left behind as far as increases are concerned. I realize that he has difficulties and that he has to co-operate with the Minister of finance and that there are only certain funds available to him.

There is one other matter I should like to raise, namely the question of the effective date of many of these clauses. I realize that from an administrative point of view it is necessary that some of them should be retrospective. In this particular case the increased bonus is effective from the 1st April, 1970. I hope that the hon. the Minister is now creating a precedent whereby the increases that are granted from time to time will coincide with the start of the financial year and be payable from the 1st April as is the case with the increase provided for in the Bill before us. The increases granted in 1966 were made effective from the 1st April, but during the last three years the increases have only been payable from the 1st October of each year. We understand that this is due to administrative difficulties. I hope that these administrative difficulties have now been overcome and that the hon. the Minister can indicate to the House whether in future it will be possible to grant these increases with effect from 1st April, the beginning of each financial year. I refer to improvements made to both this kind of pension and civil pensions. Mr. Speaker, we have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Umbilo for having given his support to this measure. The hon. member raised two minor matters which I should like to elucidate further. According to the hon. member the 2½ per cent increase in respect of war pensions, as compared with old-age pensions, is not a fair one. I should like to mention a few points to him in this regard. In the first place, war pensions in general are considerably, higher than old-age pensions. The war pensions being received by the majority of widows amount to almost R74 per month as against the present R33 per month in respect of old-age pensions. To-day a war widow with children may receive as much as R129 per month. In the second place, war pensioners also receive supplementary allowances apart from the basic pension. The allowances are also taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the bonus. In other words, the bonus is not necessarily based on the basic pension only, but on the basic pension plus the allowances payble. In the third place, the majority of widows who are in receipt of war pensions and who have minor children, also qualify for a civil allowance and, in fact, a maintenance allowance in terms of the Children’s Act. Apart from the 2½ per cent concession such people are receiving at present, they also qualify for all the concessions which have been announced in respect of civil pensions and allowances by the Minister of finance in the Part Appropriation. The majority of war pensioners over the age of 70 years are also in receipt of war veterans pensions. The wives of a great number of these people receive old-age pensions. In many cases they are also, therefore, enjoying the benefits of the concessions in respect of civil pensions. Fifthly, it should be borne in mind that the bonus these people receive is not regarded as income when applications for a civil pension or allowance is made. Any increase in the bonus does not, therefore mean a reduction of the civil pension or allowance, something which is an additional benefit as far as these people are concerned. In the sixth place, to the large majority of war pensioners who do not qualify for a civil pension, this war pension is not their only source of income. Persons belonging to the latter group are in many cases still in a position to hold their own in the open labour market. With these few arguments I mentioned, I want to make it quite clear that we are in the position of having had to choose precisely which people had to be assisted with this amount of money. We thought in all honesty that these people are being assisted and may find assistance in so many other respects, that we have decided to do it in this way. We are not unsympathetic towards these people, but we have to cut our coat according to our cloth. We cannot, of course, do anything else.

One other matter that was raised by the hon. members, was the Question of the payments which are going to be made with effect from 1st April. The hon. member expressed the hope that this was a principle that was being approved so that payments could be made on 1st April in future. I want to tell him straight away that I wish it were the case, but unfortunately it is not. It cannot be. This year is different to others in that we have a short session and will have a second session later this year. Calculations are made by the computer after proper programming. Payments cannot be made with retrospective effect unless such arrear payments are calculated manually by the officials for every individual case. In view of the manpower shortage this is not possible. In addition, we have the continuous stream of inquiries from the public to deal with, creating further problems and causing considerable delays. The second reason why concessions and civil pensions were usually paid as from 1st October in the past, is because the Budget Speech usually takes place towards the end of March in a normal year. Changes in civil pensions require financial legislation to be introduced and amendments to be effected to the relevant regulations, which is usually done only towards the end of the session. In other words, the legislation is not approved until May. Under these circumstances the money cannot be paid out with effect from 1st April. In those cases it has to be paid out with effect from 1st October. In the third place, it has been made possible for payments to be made with effect from 1st April this year by virtue of the fact that the introduction of the necessary legislation and the amendment of the regulations took place in time. This has already been approved. In other words, we can start immediately with the necessary programming for the computer and payments can be made on the specific date.

There is yet another argument which to my mind is a strong one. I mention this in conclusion. If these concessions had been announced during the second session of Parliament, it would have created problems in that it would have been impossible for these concessions to be paid out in October, but would have had to be held in abyeance until the following year because it would not have been possible to promulgate in time the financial legislation authorizing the expenditure. For that reason it is necessary in this particular year with the two sessions to approve the legislation and to make these payable with effect from 1st April.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill contains amendments to four Acts, namely the Insurance Act, the Pension Funds Act, the Banks Act and the Building Societies Act. The proposed amendments to the Insurance Act and the Pension Funds Act affect the investments which insurers and pension funds have to hold in prescribed assets. In terms of both Acts, one of the classes of prescribed assets is the loans issued or guaranteed by certain institutions approved by the Registrar. In terms of the Insurance Act, the institutions which the Registrar may approve are limited to those similar to local authorities and utility undertakings such as Escom and the Rand Water Board. The proposed amendments to the relative provisions of the Insurance Act will remove the restrictions and give the Registrar a wider discretion to add new kinds of institutions to the list of approved institutions, subject to such conditions as he may impose. Under the Pension Funds Act, the Registrar has wider powers to approve institutions than under the Insurance Act, but also under this Act it is limited to the approval of institutions. The powers conferred by these two Acts, do not cover the approval of particular loans. In order to include a particular loan the prescribed class of assets, the only alternative at present is to approve the institution which issued or guaranteed that loan. Now the proposed amendments will extend the powers of the Registrar so as to cover under both Acts particular loans as well.

A further effect which the proposed amendments to both the Insurance Act and the Pension Funds Act will have is that an institution which has been approved by the Registrar, will henceforth not be able to extend the list of prescribed assets by in turn guaranteeing other loans. Only the loans which the approved institutions issue, and not also those which they have guaranteed, will rank as prescribed assets. This curtailment has become necessary in order to eliminate the anomaly which arises when the registrar refuses to approve an institution and his refusal is circumvented in that loans of the refused institution are guaranteed by another institution which the Registrar has previously approved. This much as regards the amendments to the Insurance Act and the Pension Funds Act.

I now come to the Banks Act. The minimum amounts of paid-up capital, unimpaired reserve funds, and liquid assets which a banking institution has to maintain, are based on its liabilities to the public. A commercial bank, but not another kind of banking institution, may decrease its liabilities to the public by an amount equal to 50 per cent of its remittances in transit. This deduction which commercial banks may make, places them in a more favourable position than other banking institutions which also accept deposits which may be withdrawn by means of cheques and which have a branch system, but have not yet been classified as commercial banks. There is no sound reason why the latter should not enjoy this concession as well; consequently the concession was granted to them last year. The proposed amendment will now confirm the new position with retrospective effect. The next amendment to the Banks Act is consequential upon the concession granted to banking institutions and building societies last year to accept larger deposits on savings accounts. If is known that as a result of strong competition, inter alia, from unit trust schemes, building societies have been finding it impossible in recent times to draw sufficient funds from the public in order to satisfy the demand for housing loans. When the net flow of funds to building societies virtually came to a standstill last year, it was necessary to make certain concessions to building societies without any delay, in order to mobilize more funds from the public for housing purposes. On 5th August, 1969, building societies were allowed, inter alia, to exceed the statutory amount of R6,000, which may be accepted from a person on a savings account, and to accept up to R10,000 on such an account. In all fairness, the same concession was granted to banking institutions which were subject to similar limitations. In order to legalize this concession, it is necessary for the Act to be amended with retrospective effect. The Banks Act prohibits the use of the word “bank”, and derivatives thereof, in the name or description of undertakings which are not registered as banking institutions, unless the Minister has given permission thereto. The purpose of this control is to prevent confusion and deception. The principles on which applications are judged, are clear, and there is therefore no sound reason why the Minister should be troubled with the numerous applications for permission which are received. They can be dealt with just as well by the Registrar, as indeed, happens in the case of the other Acts which the Registrar of Financial Institutions administers and which contain similar restrictions on the use of names. In any event, the Banks Act already makes provision for the right of appeal to the Minister against any decision of the Registrar. This Act is therefore being amended in order to entrust the judgment of these applications to the Registrar.

I now come to the amendments to the Building Societies Act. In dealing with the amendments to the Banks Act, I mentioned the relaxation of the limits on amounts which building societies may accept on savings accounts. In order to legalize last year’s concession, the Act has to be amended with retrospective effect in order to raise the limit from R6,000 to R10,000. In the case of the small building societies, the limit is being raised from R2,000 to R3,500. The next amendment to the Building Societies Act makes provision for the issue of a new type of share by building societies. Where a building society has issued an indefinite or fixed period share with a fixed rate of dividend, the Bill is authorizing the building society, in spite of the conditions on which the share has been issued, to decrease the rate of dividend from time to time after at least one month’s written notice has been given to the shareholder. It stands to reason that this power which the Bill is giving building societies makes building society shares less attractive to the investor than long-term investments. In order to enable building societies to offer investors a more attractive long-term investment, permission was granted last year, in anticipation of authorizing legislation, for building societies to issue a special fixed period share with a fixed rate of dividend which will remain unaltered for the full currency of the share. Except in special circumstances, these shares may be redeemed only after the expiry of the full period of issue, and they may also not serve as security for a loan from the society which issued the shares. The proposed amendments now authorize, with retrospective effect the issue of these shares.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there is the increase in the present maximum amount of R10,000 which a newly established building society may at present grant against the security of a mortgage of urban immovable property. When this limitation was inserted in the Act in 1961. it was thought that a new building society should refrain from granting relatively large mortgage bonds and that the limit of R10,000 was reasonable as an advance in respect of a dwelling-house. In the present circumstances a limit of R10,000 is unrealistic; hence the proposal that it should be increased. A new building society will now be allowed to make an advance not exceeding R20,000, or such a greater amount as the Registrar may approve, against security of a mortgage, before the end of its first financial year. There is no danger of the position degenerating, because the Act imposes several other restrictions on advances which adequately suppress the granting of large advances. For example, the Act provides that not more than 25 per cent of a society’s total assets at the closure of its last preceding calendar quarter may be invested in mortgages which exceed R15,000.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, as the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated, amends other statutes namely the Pensions Act, the Building Societies Act, the Insurance Act and the Banks Act. In general it is an administrative Bill and we support the Second Reading thereof.

[Inaudible.]

I hope the hon. member for Brits will come into the debate because I am auite sure that he will be able to make a weighty contribution.

I did not say a word.

He is very quiet these days.

Silence is the greatest argument …

Order!

Provided you know what the argument is about.

This Bill provides greater flexibility for the investment policy of these institutions. But I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that as the Registrar has the say in so far as the investment policy is concerned cognizance should be given to the diversification which takes place among the financial institutions to-day. I read in the Press this morning of an insurance organization being taken over by one of the banks. When banks take over insurance companies or vice versa and there is diversification of similar institutions, the Registrar must be on this guard that investments in terms of the relative statute are not necessarily made in an institution of the same family. There is the risk that the security the public expects to be maintained would not be maintained as it is spread in the same organization. For example, if an insurance company is taken over by a bank and is required to invest certain of its securities in a bank as an investment and virtually the same directors have control, there is the danger that they may be prejudiced. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will bear that in mind when he says that the Registrar has control and will decide what investments are appropriate. There is the danger that when companies are associated the tendency is for one company to invest in another branch of the same organization and thereby to keep the interest investment in the same family. It does not necessarily follow that the public outside are to the same extent secured, because there can be a conflict of interests, particularly if they have the same boards. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will bear that in mind and will draw the attention of the Registrar to this matter.

I think that this Bill in general provides for greater flexibility. This Bill is also more realistic having regard to the changed circumstances. It allows for larger amounts to be invested by the private investor and that must be expected as over die years the value of money has gone down. One therefore has to save a larger amount to invest in a house or some other asset which requires in the first instance, the building up of building society funds and building society investments. This Bill takes into account the fact that bigger amounts are required to be saved and therefore the. amount the individual is allowed to have as his credit must, in consequence, be a larger amount. I suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister should bring to the notice of the Registrar the importance of keeping the question of diversification continually in mind, because with the amalgamations and mergers taking place today. there can be a conflct of interests. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will bear this in mind when this Bill is considered.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I appreciate the support the Opposition is according this measure. I would like to assure the hon. member for Pinetown that I will make a point of writing to the Registrar especially to bring the suggestions of the hon. member to his attention. I may, perhaps, just remind the hon. member that there was a technical committee appointed by the hon. the Minister of finance to enquire into the whole banking structure in South Africa in 1964. I believe it is the intention of the hon. the Minister to appoint another technical committee soon to go into the financial set-up of all these institutions. We will bear in mind what the hon. member said in this regard. With regard to the prescribed investments and the authority that is now under this Bill granted to the Registrar, I may point out that the Registrar had the same power under the Act which we are now changing. We are eliminating one difficulty we had, namely that the Registrar after he had approved a particular institution had no power over such an institution in so far as it could guarantee loans of other institutions. That is now being rectified and we are giving the specific authority to the Registrar to approve any loan for a prescribed investment.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As usual, this Bill deals with miscellaneous matters concerning the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Railway and Harbour Fund. I do not consider it necessary to deal with each clause in detail, since the various clauses are explained in the explanatory memorandum which hon. members have before them. If any hon. member desires more information on some aspect or other, I shall do my best to give further details.

Mr. Speaker, this is an administrative measure and it gives effect to various departmental transfers and authorities. However, I should like to mention one matter in particular. That is the amendment to the Post Office Act, which-provides for the increase in the limit for Post Office Savings Bank accounts. The amount is raised from R4,000 to R10,000. This is a realistic amount in the-light of present day circumstances. I hope that, apart from providing a sum of R10,000 as the limit for the Post Office Savings Bank, the hon. the Minister will be able to give us some indication of the number of Post Office Savings Bank accounts which are at the limit of R4,000. One gets the general impression that the Post Office Savings Bank is used by the small man and the accounts seldom go to large figures. If it is proposed to have the limit as R10,000, I submit that the Post Office itself will have to do more publicity work and public relations work to attract the public. I suggest the time is long overdue for the adoption of a more realistic attitude towards the Post Office Savings Bank system. The Post Office Savings Bank could be used by the ordinary man in the street to a far greater extent than it is being used now if we had a more realistic approach to this Governmental department. One gets the impression that the Post Office Savings Department is a Cinderella department. It is mainly for the small income group. If the hon. the Minister wants to attract people to invest up to R10,000, I suggest that a more active effort on the part of the department concerned should be made. Under present circumstances the ordinary man who wants to invest up to R10,000, I am afraid, wants to invest in a far more energetic, modern and efficient saving system than the present Post Office Savings Bank system. We support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague the hon. member for Pine-town in regard to the Post Office Savings Bank. Savings Banks are a financial instrument which is of great value in the Western democratic countries. I really feel that we are not making sufficient use of that instrument in order to assist the small man. I therefore welcome this provision to increase the amount that can be deposited in the Savings Bank, but I do doubt very much whether it is going to be very effective. The obvious reason why it might not be as effective as the hon. the Minister hopes, is that an interest rate of only 4 per cent is being paid. I think it is one of the lowest interest rates which is being offered by any savings bank. I feel that the reconsideration of the Post Office Saving Bank’s value should also involve the question of interest rates, even though it is free from income tax. After all, if we take into account that the value of money is declining by about 3 per dent per year, an interest rate of 4 pet cent is really not very impressive.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, this clause gives further powers to the Railway Administration. The Railway Administration may now invest with such financial institutions outside the Republic as may be expressly approved by the Minister of Transport. First of all I should like to know which institutions outside the Republic are contemplated as investment media for the Railway Administration. Secondly I should like to know what control is to be exercised over the question of rates of interest, the security and otherwise regarding the advance or the loan which may be made. This appears to be left entirely to the discretion of the Minister of Transport. Surely, it is desirable that the Minister of finance should at least be brought into any investments of this sort which are made outside the boundaries of the Republic. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister can enlighten us whether it is contemplated to make loans through the Railway Administration to foreign countries or to foreign institutions. As I understand this legislation, this is not necessary in the case of South West Africa, but is it contemplated that we are now going to lend money via the Railway Administration, as apart from the Government, to a foreign country? Does this mean that they are now going to make advances to foreign countries? Why is such a measure put into the Bill? It must have been put into this Bill for a specific purpose, which is to cover some future investments, or has the Minister of Transport already made advances? I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to explain why this provision was included in this Bill.

Whom has he made advances to?

It is not envisaged that the South African Railways will invest funds overseas in any way. But, as we all know, railway equipment is purchased overseas from time to time, sometimes in fairly large quantities. I happen to know that at present, just to mention one item, we have an order something like 90 diesel locomotives involving an amount of R12 million. Naturally, funds have to be sent to certain oversea countries in settlement of accounts from time to time, and it could just happen that funds lie idle in those countries for perhaps a week or a fortnight before they are actually paid over. Thus short-term money of the South African Railways could be lying idle overseas, and at present there is no legal provision to invest those moneys. Perhaps it will not happen, but in case such an eventuality should arise we are making provision here to invest the money and to earn interest. I think I can assure the Committee that the institutions approved of by the Minister of Transport will be approved of in consultation with the Minister of finance.

Can we have the assurance of the Deputy Minister that investments made for the purposes stated by him will not be long-term investments but only short-term investments? [Interjections.] Sir, it is all very well for hon. members to interject, but this clause that we have before us does not say whether the investments are short-or long-term investments. It gives the Minister the power to invest overseas or to invest outside the country. The hon. the Deputy Minister in his reply has told us that these investments are to be made for short terms of a week or a fortnight. I would like to have his assurance that these investments will only be short-term and not long-term investments.

Sir, I am not at all satisfied with the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister. Is it suggested that the credit of South Africa when we place an order for locomotives is so bad that we have to pay cash with the order? I cannot believe that that is the position and I think the hon. the Deputy Minister owes us a somewhat clearer explanation and not cut conjecture that this power may be required. Surely, if the South African Railway Administration place an order with any country for locomotives we are not expected to make a cash deposit with the order? Surely, that is not expected of our Government, or is that what we have descended to? Because that is all that the hon. the Minister has suggested. I believe that we are entitled to a little more information from the hon. the Deputy Minister. Either he does not know the answer or there is another answer that we should have. I cannot believe for one moment that we must amend an Act to provide for a seven-day investment with some institution in Germany because we have to pay a deposit with the order when we order goods for South Africa. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will take us fully into his confidence.

Sir, the hon. member is trying to find something that is not there. Any person, any company. any organization that does business overseas …

Even Anglo-American.

… surely has the right to invest some money overseas, even if it is for a day. It is just good business, but South Africa’s biggest State-owned business has not got that right, and the hon. member apparently refuses to let it have that right. The hon. member has mentioned locomotives. I have said that we have been buying locomotives lately. Actually those locomotives are being paid for on delivery, the purchase price being guaranteed by the Reserve Bank. I just mentioned locomotives as an illustration of the fact that from time to time we buy certain stock overseas for the South African Railways. This goes on year after year and month after month. We are doing business overseas like any other company or any other financial institution or organization in South Africa, and they all have this right to invest money there. We, however, have not got that right. I give the assurance to the hon. member for Pinetown that this only refers to short-term money and actually the clause says so specifically; it refers to money on short-call, on short-term deposit.

He has never even read the clause.

I give the hon. member for Pinetown this assurance and I hope he will be satisfied.

I am sorry, Sir, but the hon. the Deputy Minister’s assurance is not an answer to what has been questioned. We have questioned the power which is being asked for here. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that it may be necessary to have this power. Surely you do not come to Parliament to ask for something that you might need unless you know what you need it for. Sir, any importer of goods knows that there are usually three ways in which goods are paid for. The South African Railways purchase by tender; that tender lays down the conditions of payment. That payment can either be against shipment, on delivery, or split payments spread over a period after delivery. Before the order is placed the terms of payment are laid down. But no importer, unless he is a very bad businessman, is going to send money overseas to pay for something before he needs to pay for it. He will have a draft payable against shiping documents …

That costs money.

… or he will buy through sight draft or he will pay through a shipper. But what businessman is going to send R12 million overseas before he needs to do so and have it lying around in some oversea country for two weeks? Sir, if that is the way in which our finances are being run, if that is the way in which the taxpayer’s money is being spent, then it is high time there was a change. Why else do they ask for this power? The very fact that they are asking for this power is an admission that the taxpayer’s money is being sent overseas before it is required to pay for what has been purchased. In other words, there is administrative inefficiency, and in order to deal with administrative inefficiency they need the power to make short-term investments. We are not satisfied that the hon. the Deputy Minister has given us the proper explanation of this power which he is asking for here.

I can only say that the hon. member for Durban (Point) is finding it very difficult to take the medicine which was handed out to him in the Other Place this afternoon. Surely the South African Railways are doing business across our borders in Portuguese territory. [Interjections.] Surely, the South African Airways have Offices all over the world where tickets are bought and where they receive money. But the Opposition is not willing to grant to the South African Railways a facility which every company and every institution in South Africa has. That is all I have to say on this matter.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has now departed from locomotives being purchased from the Continent and switched to the question of establishing contact with adjacent Portuguese territories or airports. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this has got anything to do with investments towards the financing of shipbuilding in foreign countries. Is this not what this power is required for?

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation does not know what we are talking about. Sir, is this not connected perhaps with the financing of foreign boat-building? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation seems to have made more announcements in the last five minutes than he has made in the last five months. May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this is not connected possibly with some undertaking of that nature where we might invest money in order to finance the construction works? I cannot see that there is any justification for this type of investment on the basis that the hon. the Deputy Minister has suggested, i.e. that we happen to have railway arrangements with Mozambique. I do wish the hon. the Deputy Minister will be a little more explicit. He has now left locomotives and he has gone to airports. Will he not tell us exactly why this power is required?

I want to give the hon. member for Green Point the assurance that this clause has not been inserted in the Finance Bill to enable us to pay out subsidies on shipbuilding to oversea countries. In any case, that is not the function of the Railway Administration; that is the function of the Department of Economic Affairs. The subsidy by which South Africa encourages the shipbuilding industry is paid to firms building ships in South Africa and not outside South Africa. If there are any further questions that the hon. member wishes to ask I shall be only too glad to answer.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a further question. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave two examples of the purpose for which this power might be required. He quoted the example of the Airways. Is he not aware that we have pool agreements with all the airway companies with whom South Africa operates on a pool basis, that all moneys are paid to the pool partners, that those pool payments are then adjusted internationally between the companies and that there is not money floating around waiting to be paid in? This is arranged by agreement. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave Lourenço Marques as the second example. He suggested that we might want to buy railway engines in Lourenço Marques. But is he not aware of the Mozambique Convention under which payments are regulated for imports through Mozambique to South Africa? We vote money here every year through Parliament for this purpose. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister does not know the answer and I suggest that he should get up and say, “I just know that the Railways have asked me for this power; I do not know what they want to use it for, but I am prepared to give it to them as a blank cheque”. That is the actual position; the hon. the Deputy Minister does not know.

Mr. Chairman, is this not a wonderful Opposition! They want us to operate outside the borders of the Republic. The South African Railways or the South African Airways must open Offices and open accounts with commercial banks in Britain, France, Germany, in the Portuguese territories and in America, but we must not operate these accounts with money; we must do it without a single cent or a single dollar or a single franc or a single mark. We do not have any business overseas, so we do not need any money there; the pool will look after everything and where the pool falls short the Opposition will see to it that everything is rosy in the garden!

I put the clause. Any objection? Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! The hon. member is too late. I put clause 8.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member for Salt River rose immediately when you asked whether there was any objection to clause 7.

The hon. member for Salt River may proceed.

This clause refers to balances retained at its disposal overseas by the Railway Administration. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if it is not a fact that our purchases overseas are covered by gold deposits? Do we actually transmit rand deposits overseas or are our purchases covered by gold deposits?

Order! That has nothing to do with this clause at all. The question whether gold is transmitted is not at issue at all.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion, printed in my name, as follows—

As recently as 10th February, 1970 I laid copies of the Customs Union Agreement concerned in this motion upon the Table.

In 1910 a Customs Agreement was signed between South Africa and the three former High Commission Territories, namely Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland, which made provision for the free unrestricted interchange of goods between the four countries. After South Africa had left the Commonwealth in 1961, the Government decided to revise the trade relations with the three neighbouring states and to enter into negotiations with them in order to conclude a new agreement. These negotiations were initially conducted with the British Government, which acted on behalf of the three neighbouring states. After these three states had become independent direct negotiations with them were resumed. These negotiations ultimately lead to the concluding of a new agreement between the four countries which was signed on 11th December. 1969 in Pretoria and published on 12th December, 1969 in the Gazette. The new agreement, which now awaits ratification by this House, will come into operation on 3rd March, 1970.

The agreement is of course technically complicated. It contains quite a number of administrative or procedural instructions which do not constitute any principles of policy, but are only aimed at simplifying the administration.

I should therefore like to deal with the most important principles on which the agreement is based in order to give hon. members an insight into the basic objectives of the agreement. as well as the various arrangements to which the four parties agreed in order to realize these objectives. Let me explain in the first instance that the 1910 agreement has at present been in operation for almost 60 years and has with the passage of time laid a firm foundation for mutually beneficial economic co-operation between these four countries.

However, it must be borne in mind that during the past 60 years economic conditions in the four countries have changed considerably. In addition to that the constitutional position of the three neighbouring states has also undergone a fundamental change in this sense that it was only in relatively recent times that they obtained full sovereign independence. Concomitant with this change in their constitutional position a strong desire also arose in them to accelerate their economic development and therefore to negotiate under the new agreement arrangements with the Republic which would grant full recognition to their understandable aspirations in this regard.

In the light, of these facts the concluding of the new agreement which is based on the continuation of the present toll union between the four countries and which at the same time grants recognition to the changed circumstances and needs of each of these four countries must definitely be regarded as an important milestone in the Republic’s relations with the three neighbouring states.

The most important provisions of the new agreement are those which give expression to the internationally accepted concepts of a Customs Union. These include the principle that there will be duty free interchange of domestically produced and imported goods without any quantitative restrictions in the common customs area of the four states. In addition it is being provided that the customs duty which applies from time to time in South Africa is also applicable to all goods imported from outside the common customs area.

At the same time it is being provided that the excise and sales duties which apply from time to time in the Republic will be levied to an equal extent in the neighbouring states on all goods which in our country are subject to duties of this kind, regardless of whether they are imported or domestically produced goods.

In order to obtain a desirable measure of flexibility in the application of uniform customs, excise and sales duties, in the customs area as a whole it is provided that adjustments to these duties can only be made after prior mutual consultation between the four countries, unless such adjustments are introduced for purely fiscal purposes. In this way for example, South Africa will have to consult in advance with the three neighbouring states in regard to the amendment of its fiscal structure, while any one of the three neighbouring states, after such prior consultation with the other members of the customs union, can levy duties for the promotion of its general economic development and particularly of its industrial development on goods produced in any one of the other states of the toll union, provided similar duties are also made applicable to goods originating in countries outside the customs union.

These provisions in the agreement represented two important exceptions to the general principles of a duty free interchanrge of domestically produced goods as well as the maintenance of uniform outside tariffs which form the basis of the customs union arrangement among the four countries.

Another important principle of the new agreement is the provision which grants any one of the member states the right, if specific goods are imported in such quantities and under such circumstances from another member state in its area that these imports constitute a threat for its own producers or manufacturers of similar or directly competitive products to request the member state from which the goods concerned are being imported, to consult with it at the earliest opportunity and to co-operate with it in order to find a mutually acceptable solution to the problems which such imports are causing.

In addition to this the agreement also contained instructions in regard to the regulation of the marketing of agricultural products. What these instructions amount to in short is that any arrangements of this nature which have been introduced in one of the member states can also be applied by the latter on an equitable basis to its imports of the agricultural products concerned from the three other neighbouring states.

In addition the new agreement provides for the co-ordination of the steps taken by the four states in regard to the application of import restrictions. The understanding in this case is once again that the member states will, with the application of such restrictions, consult one another in order to ensure that the object which the restrictions are seeking to achieve, will be achieved. What the provisions of the agreement amount to in essence is that the parties will co-operate in order to ensure the effectiveness of import restrictions which have been introduced in the Republic for economic reasons.

The new agreement also maintains the principle of the distribution from the joint pool of revenue obtained from the levying of customs, excise and sales duties in the customs union as a whole. The basis of this distribution of revenue, however, differs from that which is applicable in terms of the present agreement. In short, the common revenue under the new agreement is distributed on a basis of the extent of the imports of each of the three enighbouring states in contrast with the fixed percentage of the revenue which each of them receives in terms of the present agreement. The basis of the distribution of the revenue for which provision is made in the new agreement is regarded as being a more equitable formula than the present because the fixed percentages which the three states have up to now received from the common revenue pool was not related in any way to the fluctuating scope of their total imports. The altered basis of distribution of the common revenue will result in each of the three neighbouring states receiving a greater share from the common revenue of the customs union as a whole than has been the case up to now. The altered circumstances which apply at present in comparison with those of 1910, justify this benefit which will accrue to the states concerned in terms of the new agreement.

Owing to the exceptionally long period of time taken up by the negotiations, as well as the fact that the set-up of the common revenue pool was changed last year by the introduction of sales duty in the Republic, it is being provided that the new formula for the distribution of the revenue pool will be applied with retrospective effect as from 1st April, 1969.

The new agreement also contains provisions in regard to the transportation of goods within the joint customs area and the through passage of goods from one member of the customs union through the territory of another. In general outline these provisions are aimed at ensuring the unrestricted passage of imported goods through the territory of one member state to that of another, but with an adequate degree of freedom for the member states to protect their own security when granting such through passage facilities.

Provision is also being made for the appointment of a customs union commission, consisting of representatives of all the parties, for the purpose of discussing any matter which may arise out of the agreement. This Commission will meet once a year, but any contracting parties are at liberty at any time to request a meeting of the Commission in order to discuss any matters in regard to the agreement.

The new customs union agreement with our three neighbouring states is of historical significance in this sense that it is the first customs union agreement which has been concluded between the Republic and another group of independent African states. The signing thereof serves merely to confirm the Government’s traditional standpoint that there is adequate scope for the peaceful co-existence of peoples and nations, regardless of differences in their political convictions and ideologies. As I have already stated previously in this House and elsewhere the Government is openly convinced that as far as trade relations between countries are concerned, the existence of political and other differences need not form any stumbling blocks in the road of mutually beneficial cooperation between them.

Then I should like to add that the agreement was concluded on a basis which envisages the promotion of the economic development of the members of the customs union as a whole and in particular to ensure that the development of the lesser developed members of the customs union as well as the diversification of the economy of each, will be accelerated. In this sense the signing of the new treaty is a significant event for the future economic welfare and stability of these four countries.

I move that the agreement be ratified.

We support this motion. However, there are one or two matters on which I should like some information from the hon. the Minister. The Minister said that this was a Customs Union which had been in existence since 1910, and over the years we have seen the development of the Native territories of Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland from pastoral countries, or agricultural countries, to, in some cases, semi-industrial countries, and it is with this industrial development that I am concerned. The Minister will see from article 6 of this agreement, which has already been signed by the countries concerned, that it provides for the imposition of additional duties for protective purposes by Botswana, Lesotho or Swaziland, and then article 7 of the customs agreement provides for a specification of industries of major importance to Botswana, Lesotho or Swaziland. It says that the Government of Botswana, Lesotho or Swaziland may with the concurrence of the other contracting parties (a) specify industries which are or are likely to be of major importance to its economy, and (b) specify periods in relation to such industries for purposes of paragraph 2 of this article. Now, paragraph 2 says that “the customs duties applicable to goods imported from outside the common customs area and competing with those of any industry specified in terms of this article, shall not for the period specified in terms of paragraph 1”, etc…. Sir, what I should like to know is, what criteria does the Minister intend to apply to these industries which are established in neighbouring territories? A certain amount of interest has been shown by overseas countries who have decided to invest in Africa. After seeing conditions in South Africa, they have found that we lay down certain minimum standards in factories, minimum standards for wages, working conditions, etc. Does the Minister take into account the standards which may be laid down in the neighbouring territories? If lower standards obtain in those countries and their industries are protected as well, there is a danger that the products of those industries can affect similar industries in South Africa, because there is no border customs control.

Industries which may otherwise have established themselves in South Africa, may, with overseas capital, now establish themselves in one of those other countries which are members of the Customs Union instead. They can then build up an industrial structure there, and look to South Africa as a market for their products, which can then compete with the products of South African industries. I should like to know from the Minister to what extent that was borne in mind when articles 6 and 7 were discussed. We find that since this agreement was first established in 1910, a further problem has arisen. When this agreement was first established, customs and excise had to be taken into account. Now, with the introduction of sales tax, a further problem has been added. Sales tax in South Africa has to be taken into consideration in arriving at the formula for the distribution of customs, excise and sales tax revenue to be shared by the contracting parties. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he sees a longterm continuation of this Customs Union. I am quite sure that we would all like to see it continued. We should, however, like at least the same conditions to apply to the industries which will be established in the neighbouring territories, as those which obtain in South Africa, otherwise there is the danger that industries which could not be established in South Africa will in fact be established in the neighbouring territories. Such industries in the neighbouring territories could, when they have developed to a certain stage, compete with those of South African manufacturers. I am quite sure that that would not be in the best interests of the industrialists of South Africa. I should like to know whether the Minister can give us some clarity in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I am in fact astonished at the question and the standpoint of the hon. member for Pinetown. What he is in fact asking for amounts to an interference, on the part of this Government, in certain domestic matters of another independent Government. Just imagine, Sir, what would happen if agreements were to be entered into with a country like America, or with a country like Rhodesia, and South Africa were to lay down conditions and rules for minimum standards which those specific countries had to maintain. That is what this hon. member’s standpoint amounts to. The hon. member stated that it could otherwise mean that lower standards could be applied in those countries.

I did not say that.

That is what the hon. member said. The hon. member said that it would then mean that there would be unfair competition for the factories in South Africa. In no trade agreement, with no country in the world, are such arrangements being made. We must accept that countries like Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland are countries which are still relatively undeveloped. If we require the same standards in those countries, which in principle we cannot and will not do, those industries would be placed under burdens which would not suit their local conditions. Surely we cannot do this. If we were to do this, we would be closing down those factories before they began.

What is more, Sir, perhaps the hon. member did not read that when such specific duties are requested by one of those three countries, they remain in force for eight years. After eight years South Africa must agree to it. This is a fair agreement. The hon. member cannot on the one hand plead for co-operation with African states—which we regard as of vital importance for our own country and the survival of our white civilization—and on the other hand advocate measures which would amount to those good relations being marred. I can think of no better way of causing this agreement to fail than to insist that certain minimum standards, more or less such as those in South Africa, should be laid down in the factories in those countries concerned. They cannot agree to that. You know yourself, Sir, that in a remote place, even in South Africa, we cannot always lay down the same conditions as, for example, in a large city like Johannes burg. The measures in a large city will inevitably have to be stricter. I am sorry to say that the hon. member either does not understand the circumstances, or it amounts to his proposal doing harm to the good relations between the various countries.

One of the most important means of building good relations between states, are economic means. This is one bridge on which many people can walk without standing in one another’s way, because that bridge is built to the benefit of all the countries concerned. Here we have for the first time, as the hon. the Minister said, entered into an agreement with independent neighbouring states. This is not an agreement with Great Britain as in 1910 when they were still under the control of that country. This agreement was entered into with independent states on our borders. This is an agreement which has been entered into in a very good spirit. This is also an agreement which is to the benefit of South Africa and also to the benefit of those countries concerned. It is therefore an agreement which lays the foundation for the building of sound economic relations, which in their turn lay the foundation for the building of good political relations. When we enter into such an agreement it is obvious that we must give and take. If we simply want to take and do not want to give, we can reach no agreement. That is the spirit in which this agreement was concluded. I am certain that, if the hon. member ponders this, he will realize that the request he made on the Minister can be expected of neither South Africa nor those countries. It is not in accordance with the general practice, in fact, it is the direct opposite. I want to express the hope that hon. members on that side, who also believe in good co-operation with other countries, and particularly with countries near our borders, will make their contribution in that spirit in order to build and to strengthen the good relations between our countries. I want to conclude by saying that I should like to extend my sincere congratulations to the hon. the Minister and his department on an agreement between four countries which may not perhaps seem so important on paper, but which will in the years which lie ahead show itself to be one of the best means of making those good relations ever stronger.

Mr. Speaker, I in turn am astonished at the action of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, he who is the chairman of the financial group of that party. The hon. member for Pinetown put certain questions to the hon. the Minister. The questions were simple enough. In this agreement dealing with excise and import duties, which stretches over a period of years, is it being ensured that, if a surplus of material should come in here as a result of the development of those states, it should be imported in unlimited quantities at fixed customs and excise tariffs? Now he is asking whether there is any kind of protection for our own industries. The hon. member who has just spoken, in his capacity as a businessman is very well acquainted with this. He enjoys good protection for the items he produces in this country, but this is not in terms of this excise agreement. Now the hon. member puts this question to the hon. the Minister. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what that hon. member uses as an example? He speaks of a trade agreement with the U.S.A., which we do not have in any case. I wish we did have one. A trade agreement with the U.S.A. has no bearing whatsoever on these customs and excise arrangements with neighbouring states. Now I ask you, Sir, whether one can make a comparison like this?

What about a trade agreement with Rhodesia?

Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt that hon. member when he was speaking. The hon. member himself knows what relations we have with Rhodesia. Our relations with Rhodesia are entirely different to the other example he used. The Lord knows we have too few trade agreements, and this is no trade agreement either. This has nothing to do with the trade agreement. It is an agreement in regard to customs and excise duties with ad joining states. It is nothing more and nothing less than that. The hon. member for Pinetown asked the hon. the Minister courteously whether arrangements were being made for a long-term agreement in regard to customs and excise duties …

No, you have not grasped this at all. This deals with protected rights.

No, the hon. member did not put a question in regard to protected rights to the Minister. He asked whether the rights which these factories had would be protected. Then that hon. member sprang up and went off at a tangent here. I hope the hon. the Minister will rise and reply to the hon. member instead of that hon. member who gives himself out to be the financial expert on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members referred to agricultural and industrial products. The fact of the matter is that this agreement has existed since 1910. Agricultural products were being produced at the time; and there were also industrial goods. These goods entered the country and were marketed here. Therefore no new problem is being created here. In these negotiations provision also had to be made for the fact that these young areas would also like to see their own industrial development take place. They also want sources of employment for their people and provision is being made for industries to be able to arise in those areas. The hon. member for Pinetown asked what provision we are making to ensure that there are no other conditions of employment, wage laws, and so on, which apply there. That is what he asked for by implication. The fact remains that we cannot interfere in their domestic affairs. We cannot interfere in their labour legislation. That is a matter which they must regulate themselves. Within the freedom they have, we must determine what our relations with them should be. This is also provided for in this agreement. It is very clear to me that the hon. member for East London (City) never even looked at this agreement, for article 12 provides what should happen with agricultural goods as far as joint marketing is concerned. It also provides what should be done when marketing arrangements are such that care has to be taken that agricultural products from those areas do not cause disruption for those from our agriculture. As far as industrial goods are concerned, there is also provision to the effect that industries may arise in those areas, but it is most certainly not our duty to prevent this. That is why article 17 provides the following in so far as industrial goods are concerned—

Both in that article and in article 20 provision is therefore being made for an advisory body which must meet at least once a year to iron out these problems. Provision is therefore being made for the problems foresen by hon. members. I think that this is the most equitable agreement in which recognition can also be given to their right to produce and to develop their own agriculture and their industry. If the production of one party, whether agricultural or industrial, has a prejudicial effect on that of another party, this provision for thorough consultation exists.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I sincerely believe that this Bill will be a most important milestone along the road of building nations in the Republic of South Africa and that it will add lustre to our history. I regard it as an exceptional privilege to be in the position to introduce this measure here. I have been giving serious thought to this important matter for a considerable time, but some difficulties cropped up. Fortunately we have made such progress with the establishment and development of the various Bantu nations in our country that we can now give our positive attention to the distinctive citizenship of each of these nations.

It is with pride that I want to point out that this Bill, like a few others, is one of the most fundamendal measures ever to come before this House in the Government’s extensive task of implementing, in respect of the Bantu nations, our country’s policy of separate development—which I have often in the past termed multi-national development. The Bill is concise and clear—yes, self-explanatory, but I have nevertheless deemed it necessary to lay an explanatory memorandum on the Table. I shall, in the course of my speech, endeavour to furnish such explanations as are necessary.

It is necessary to point out that I use the word “volk” in Afrikaans in this Bill and in my speech in its ordinary meaning, which is nearly the same as “national unit”, the term used in the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act (Act No. 46 of 1959). In English an equally suitable word is not available, so that, as in the Development of Self-Government for Native Nations in South West Africa Act (Act No. 54 of 1968), I have to use the word “nation”, which also means about the same as “national unit”.

I should like you to view this measure primarily as a building stone—and a corner-stone at that—in the process of the development of nations in which we are engaged. I am endeavouring to execute my taxing, yet pleasant, task in a systematic way and according to a considered pattern. That is why I want to remind members of my declaration of purpose here in your midst after I became Minister when I stated on 13th October, 1966, that I regarded it as my task to help to establish the number of Bantu nations in South Africa as separate distinctive nations and to assist them in their development into proud national and spiritual havens for the members of those nations, no matter how dispersed they were. This measure will be an indispensable instrument for the promotion of this service of building nations. In our country we have a multiplicity of nations that have to work out their own salvation here at the southernmost point of Africa. We grant one another a right of existence, each within his own circle, where each nation can and will realize itself to the highest degree. This, then, also forms the basis of our policy of separate development. We are not trying to oust or oppress one another On the contrary, we are making mutual contributions to one another’s development according to the individual nature, traditions and abilities of each. Our concept of nations is not based on difference in colour, but on the essential differences in nature. All human beings of the same colour, of course, do not necessarily belong to one nation. Therefore the white population of Western Europe consists of a number of nations and similarly the black population of Africa also consists of many nations.

For far too long a time and from far too early a stage two major errors were made: In the first instance we acted as if all the Bantu and white persons (and even the Indians and the Coloureds) in South Africa represented one actual or potential human unit and, secondly, an error was made in regarding all the Bantu persons in South Africa as one compact human unit, or nation for that matter. Not only did the conspicuous heterogeneity of the groups in the South African population escape the attention to a certain extent of most ordinary people, but unfortunately it was for years not taken into proper consideration by our legislators and national administration. Striking proof of these twofold and partially overlapping errors is to toe found in a number of laws and in administrative usages.

Fortunately it is being realized to an ever increasing extent that the Bantu population in South Africa consists of various nations, and is not one heterogeneous national community. These nations differ so much from one another that, as far as language usage is concerned, they mostly cannot understand one another. In addition their cultures, in the broadest sense of the word, are not nearly identical. I want it to be throughly understood that we do not have only one Bantu nation in South Africa, but various Bantu nations.

Each one of these Bantu ethnic units is a separate nation which is proud of its own identity. And it is in order to bring about and to stabilize this identification process that this measure is being introduced to-day. We are in this way granting recognition to individual citizenship for each national unit so as to nurture the slumbering national pride, and in this way to develop the spiritual and cultural assets of that national unit within a distinctive national milieu and to help develop a healthy self-respect and national pride.

This Bill is another of the consistent steps of this Government to carry into effect the fundamental task which it took upon itself before 1948 with the public as witness. Along with other measures on the Statute Book and all the developing activities of the Government, this measure complies with the following basic tenet, as contained in the 1948 Manifesto of the National Party. I quote: “The Native Reserve must become the true fatherland of the Native.”

This Bill will therefore contribute a great deal towards simulating among the members of each Bantu nation a feeling of national unity and national culture. And what is very important, the measure will enable the so-called urbanized Bantu person to find a home for his political aspirations with the people to whom he belongs. Too easily do superficial thinkers and opponents of our policy say that the Bantu individuals in the white areas have become detribalized and alienated from their specific groups. What they do not realize and what such sceptics do not want to take cognizance of, is that the Bantu persons in the white areas invariably retain their ethnic ties, i.e. they feel an attachment to their specific peoples and homelands, particularly as a result of all kinds of ties such as, inter alia, their origin, descent, relationships, material interests, folklore, tribal connections, history and —strongest of all—language. Therefore citizenship, which everywhere is a strong tie binding people to their nation and country, will now be and become a unifying factor for the Bantu nations as well, and it is therefore, by virtue of this measure, becoming for every Bantu person in South Africa a reality which will be regulated by statute, whereas hitherto it has been a vague uncertainty.

This Bill therefore reinforces the basis upon which also the political aspect of our policy rests in respect of the Bantu in the white area: that they belong to their own specific nations and that they cannot integrate with the Whites into one nation. Within their own context, and linked to the homelands of their specific nations, they will enjoy their political fulfilment, which will include a form of franchise. As soon as this Bill takes effect, that aspect of the activation of Bantu authorities can be dealt with systematically. As a matter of fact, the North Sotho have already expressed the desire to have their people in the white area politically associated with their homeland authorities.

I should like to go back a little way in our history, particularly in order to recall briefly how the Government has, since it assumed Office in 1948, placed various measures on the Statute Book to assist the Bantu nations in their respective homelands in their process of development, and in particular to state clearly that we do not regard ourselves as a dominating population group in South Africa, claiming autocracy over other nations here.

I repeat, in this context, what I have said several times before, that the political system of our Government is not a system by means of which the Whites as a minority nation are governing over one or more nations which together outnumber the Whites. Our policy has produced a system of a national government for each nation over itself. Of course, we—i.e. the white Government of the Republic—are helping those nations which are not yet able to proceed on their own. We also regard this as our bounden duty. Hon. members know how our policy grants recognition to Bantu homelands as well as to the homeland of the Whites, and how the Bantu in their homelands need not compete with nor fear the Whites. There the Whites are temporary helpers as long as the Bantu require their services. On the other hand, the Bantu, according to our policy, are also present in the white homelands in a casual capacity because and as long as their labour is required here.

To prove our sincerity in this regard, I should like to refer you to the most important of a series of laws which we have passed since 1948. To begin with, I mention the Bantu Authorities Act, 1951, which made provision for the establishment in the homelands of Bantu authorities, which are the embryo for the future parliamentary form of government. Tribal rule has been recognized through the tribal authorities, which can, in addition function on a regional basis as regional authorities. The highest form of this administrative hierarchy is territorial authorities, the nucleus of the future central authority of the Bantu nation concerned. The powers, functions and duties of these territorial authorities are set out in section 7 of the said Act, and I hope hon. members will look it up again. These authorities have grown everywhere, and this year we have seen, as we did last year, how they are all developing in their own distinctive manner towards the acceptance of greater responsibilities.

Another Act I mention to hon. members is the Bantu Education Act (No. 47 of 1953). This Act effected the transfer of the administration of and control over Bantu education from the various provinces to the State authority and in this way it became possible to involve the Bantu authorities to an increasing extent in the schools, and they are therefore also being trained in this branch of the process of national development, which they never found possible before.

In 1959 we took another great stride forward when the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act (No. 46 of 1959) was placed on the Statute Book to make provision for the gradual development of self-governing Bantu national units, which were identified in that Act. In the preamble to this Act the fundamental principles of our policy are clearly set out—and I am repeating them here, because they are equally important for the purposes of this Bill:

Then followed the Transkei Constitution Act, 1963. Still based on the Bantu authorities system, that measure granted further powers of self-government to the former Transkeian Territorial Authority—particularly since, as is stated in the preamble to that Act—

Hon. members probably still remember how in 1968 we passed the Development of Self-Goverment for Native Nations in South West Africa Act (No. 54 of 1968), an Act which has already resulted in the establishment of the Legislative Council for Ovamboland.

Upon thorough reflection you will realize that this Bill, and the aforementioned Acts, also link up with two important old Acts establishing the Bantu areas in South Africa, namely the Bantu Land Act (No. 27 of 1913) and the Bantu Trust and Land Act (No. 18 of 1936).

Since I am dealing with the political development of the homelands and of the Bantu nations, I must, for the sake of completeness, point out that we did not content ourselves with their political development, but that we are also planning and making provision for their economic development. For that reason we established the Bantu Corporations, and the Promotion of the Economic Development of Bantu Homelands Act, 1968 (No. 46 of 1968), makes provision for the promotion of the economic development of the Bantu homelands and their peoples.

In addition there are related Acts such as the Bantu Labour Act and the resultant Bantu Labour Regulations (Bantu Homelands) (Proclamation R74/1968), in terms of which labour bureaux have been established in the homelands under the Bantu authorities, at which bureaux work-seekers are registered, work is offered and contracts for work in white areas are concluded.

It is against this background that I should like this House to consider the measure which is now under discussion. By means of this Bill I wish to establish its own citizenship for each Bantu nation, thereby promoting its further development. As, with the exception of the Transkei, the highest form of government is, at the moment still that of a Territorial Authority, the citizenship is at this stage that of a Territorial Authority Area, but as any particular nation progresses towards greater independence, the citizenship of that nation can and will broaden in scope. (I am not referring to the Ovamboland Legislative Assembly now, because the measure now before us will not be applicable in South West Africa, as the Development of Self-Government for Native Nations in South West Africa Act (No. 54 of 1968) makes the necessary provisions.)

I do not apologize for the fact that in respect of the Bantu nations each will, in terms of this Bill, initially have incomplete citizenship. Many examples can be given of how citizenship can be an evolutionary process. All of us should therefore realize that in this Bill a system of evolutionary citizenship is being introduced.

I am fully aware that to some people this concept of citizenship will seem dubious and foreign because, according to them, it applies only to part of the country. Such persons apparently do not fully realize that we are engaged in an evolutionary process of establishing Bantu nations and of gradually forming individual countries for each.

I wish to repeat these words clearly, so that everyone can take them in and so that they will sink deeply into the minds of all. Such sceptical persons apparently do not fully realize that we are engaged in an evolutionary process of establishing Bantu nations and of gradually forming individual countries for each. If this establishment of nations and formation of their countries could be achieved at once, many problems would disappear, but these tasks require indefinite time and therefore we encounter problems, caused by incomplete differentiation in respect of budding nations for developing countries. [Interjections.] Unfortunately this differentiation is too easily and erroneously called discrimination. The hon. member is trying to put me off. He is probably just waking up. Unfortunately this differentiation is too easily and erroneously called discrimination.

However, this House gave this matter of citizenship serious consideration when the Transkei Constitution Act was being discussed in 1963, because in section 7 of that Act a Transkeian citizenship was established. Hon. members will note, too, that the definition of that citizenship has to a large extent been followed in the measure at present before us. The Transkei Constitution Act establishes the precedent of citizenship for a specific group, and therefore we cannot possibly withhold it in the case of the other groups or nations which are also on the road to self-government. After all, there is merely a difference of degree between the form of government of the Transkei and those of the other homelands. There is therefore, in my opinion, no justification whatsoever for withholding citizenship from the other nations outside the Transkei. It is an essential component in the process of nation-building, and I am very pleased that we can clinch the matter now. In this way it will be possible to identify all our Bantu nations so that each nation will be able to know precisely where it stands.

At the time of the debate on the Transkei Constitution Act, a very interesting article, signed J.F.H., appeared in the Journal of Contemporary Roman-Dutch Law (1963, Volume 26. page 44) under the heading “A Transkeian Citizen of South African Nationality”, and I recommend this to honourable members. In this article the writer deals with Transkeian citizenship, measured against international law, and he arrives at the following conclusion, which I quote—

He distinguishes between “citizenship” (burgerskap) and “nationality” (staatsburgerskap), and I think that everything he had to say in the article in regard to the Transkei, can be said with equal justification in respect of Territorial Authorities in terms of this Bill.

The certificate of citizenship referred to in the Bill is a purely consequential phenomenon —merely proof of specific nationality. Citizenship is acquired by means of the Act itself.

These certificates—and the identification of all Bantu persons as citizens of specific homelands—will, apart from the positive value thereof, as set out in the Act, and as already indicated, play a key role to an increasing extent in the further development of our policy of separate development. I have already pointed out here, and elsewhere, that our co-existence in South Africa will ever increasingly become one of inter-nation relations. This Bill can play a very important part in those relations.

I now wish to deal with the clauses in more detail. Clause 2 is the key clause. Every indigenous Bantu person, including those born or domiciled outside the homelands, becomes in terms of this measure a citizen of some or other Territorial Authority or of the Transkei. (It has been deemed desirable also to refer to “self-governing Bantu territories” in the Bill— although, apart from the Transkei. there are at present none such—because the Transkei Constitution Act uses this expression repeatedly.)

Just as in the case of the Transkei, a positive value is attached to citizenship, viz. franchise which may be exercised in respect of the area in question, apart from other privileges, duties, obligations and responsibilities which such citizenship may entail. I should like the Bantu of South Africa to realize clearly that this Bill provides—and that our Government will abide thereby—that such a homeland citizen will not be regarded as a foreigner in the Republic outside his own homeland, and will be regarded as a South African citizen for purposes of foreign relations and protection. The Republic can also at any time, by way of legislation or administratively, grant all kinds of privileges to the citizens of Bantu homelands, such as opportunities for employment, residence and visits in the white homeland.

Clause 3 defines the Bantu persons who can acquire citizenship, namely, firstly, Bantu born in the area concerned; secondly, Bantu domiciled in that area; thirdly, Bantu speaking the Bantu language of that area or belonging to any associated linguistic group which uses any dialect of that language; and fourthly, any other Bantu person related to any member of the Bantu population of that area or who has identified himself with any part of such population or who is associated with any part of such population by virtue of his cultural or racial background. This definition largely follows the definition of Transkeian citizenship. All indigenous Bantu groups are included in this.

Clause 4 deals with the loss of this citizenship. As in the case of the Transkei, citizenship of a Bantu homeland is lost if the Bantu person concerned becomes a citizen of another Territorial Authority Area or of the Transkei, or becomes a national of another state. However, he always remains a citizen of some Bantu homeland or other as long as he is a South African citizen.

Clause 5 deals with certificates of citizenship. Every Bantu person who is a citizen of a Bantu homeland can acquire a certificate of citizenship, issued by or on behalf of a Territorial Authority or on behalf of the Transkei. If a Bantu homeland, including the Transkei, should therefore request the Republican Government to issue certificates on its behalf, this can be done and my department will undertake to do so.

Clauses 6 and 7 deal with the issue of these certificates, and are so self-explanatory that I really need not elaborate on them.

Clause 8 lavs down that photographs will be necessary. The Government does not want the issue of certificates to be hampered simply because the Bantu persons concerned are not prepared to provide photographs. If therefore they do not want to or cannot provide photographs, the department will make the necessary arrangements. However, because the Bantu will have a personal pride in the document and it can acquire status value, it is anticipated that many Bantu persons will make their own arrangements for the necessary photographs—a procedure which will in fact be encouraged by us.

Clause 9 deals with objections and appeals. Provision is made in this clause for objections by either the Bantu themselves or the Territorial Authority concerned to certificates which have been issued. These objections are then heard by an Officer designated by the Minister. It is possible to appeal against that Officer’s decision to the Minister, whose decision is final.

Clause 10 relates to offences and penal provisions and lays down various offences, and is aimed at forgeries (and the confiscation of forged documents) or misleading representations. The mere fact that a Bantu person is not in possession of a certificate of citizenship will not. in terms of this Bill, constitute a punishable offence. In fact, the measure does not even make provision for certificates being demanded.

In terms of clause 11 a variety of regulations can be promulgated to facilitate and expedite the issue of the certificates. In fact, it is deemed desirable to prescribe by regulation as much as possible of the procedural side of this matter.

In regard to clauses 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, which deal with consequential amendments, it is necessary to note that a Bantu person must still be in possession of a reference book, in which his identification details will appear. There is therefore no reason why a Bantu person will of necessity have to produce his certificate of citizenship for influx control purposes—i.e. for residence in urban areas. Since the certificate has not been made statutorily demandable, a higher premium is being placed on these documents, which will greatly contribute towards directly linking every Bantu person in the Republic with a specific Bantu homeland. However, the value of the document will rapidly become apparent to the Bantu community, just as in the case of our own identity cards, in that it will be possible to produce the certificate for obtaining everything which entails benefits. Here I have in mind matters such as voters’ rolls, old age and disability allowances, unemployment insurance, employment privileges, etc. The Bantu Reference Bureau will maintain records of details concerning certificates of citizenship which have been issued.

I may mention that the initial draft Bill, which embodied the same principles as this one, was discussed with the Executive Committees of the various Territorial Authorities, and they all accepted it with enthusiasm. The Transkeian Cabinet was consulted in regard to the Bill in its present form, and expressed its satisfaction with it.

With this explanation then, Mr. Speaker, I hopefully look forward to an interesting and constructive discussion of this Bill.

I wish to conclude with two fundamental questions. Firstly: Is it really asking too much, when I now make an appeal to the members of this House to accept, also in this case, as has in fact been happening throughout the world, the differentiation among the various nations, and to help to perfect this measure, which seeks to regulate the differentiation among the Bantu nations? This is my first question. This is a perfectly natural phenomenon which is manifested throughout the world. I am asking it here too for our Bantu nations in South Africa.

I want to ask a second question as well. If we can all co-operate in doing this here, will our actions not be a forcible demonstration to the entire world that we in South Africa are not so much contending with a race problem, but that we are seriously engaged in a task of building nations, a task of building nations, as apposed to a race problem?

Nations in the making.

Yes, in the making.

In the performance of my duties I am guided by a conviction which I in turn am trying to communicate to all. I hope that this debate and this Bill will also bring it home to everyone as a clarion call: Do your duty by the nations!

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. the Minister, it was very difficult to appreciate that we are living in the same country. The hon. the Minister is talking about a Cloud-cuckoo-land when he talks of the nations he thinks exist in South Africa. He is quite wrong and what he intends and hopes will happen, is quite impracticable and will never happen.

That is what you always say.

It is time the Minister came down out of the clouds, and the same applies to Mr. Carr, of whatever constituency is unfortunately represented by him.

A second-hand car.

Maitland will trade him in.

He must come down from the clouds to realize that he will not be here for very much longer either. The hon. the Minister must come down from the clouds and appreciate that as a Minister of State he is expected to deal with practical politics.

What is more practical than this policy?

He read with pride the history of development of the Bantu nations as he called them, and of the progress they have made by Acts which have been passed by this Government. He ended up with the Transkeian Constitution. But do we remember how the Transkeian Constitution came about? Do we remember what Dr. Verwoerd said when he announced in this House that independence is to be given to the reserves? Do we remember that he said that it is not something he wanted? Do we remember that he said: “Dit is ’n verbrokkeling wa ons nie graag wil hê nie,” but we are being forced by the outside world to do it? Do they remember that? It was not something he was proud of, it was something he apologized for. He apologized for that and he gave his reasons. Do we remember that when the late Dr. Verwoerd originally became Minister of Bantu Affairs, he started talking about separate development, about this complete separation, about “algehele apartheid”? The older members like the Chief Whip will remember that when we tackled Dr. Malan about it and asked him whether that was his policy, he said that it was an ideal but not practical politics. We have been listening to unattainable idealism from the hon. the Minister. We have to get down to practical politics. The hon. the Minister says we have an example in what has been done to the Transkei. There separate citizenship was given to the Africans in the Transkei. He quotes a Dutch authority. All he could give us was the initials of the lawyer who wrote the article.

You should know his name because I know his name.

If the hon. the Minister knows him, why does he not tell us who it is?

It is Professor Heine of the University of South Africa.

That was the only authority he could find and he said that it was from a Dutch publication.

I said it was a journal of Roman-Dutch Law.

He finds one authority who says that the Transkei can obtain international status, even if there are residual powers left with the Government of the Republic. That is what the hon. the Minister has said. The professor did not say what residual powers would have to be left to enable it to be recognized as an international state. I should like to know whether the Transkei would ever be recognized under these conditions by UNO.

Read that whole article and you will see what it is all about.

Because one professor writes a legal article, it does not mean to say that that is international law. Does the hon. the Minister think that if the Transkei applied to become a member of the United Nations Organization, it will be accepted? Of course it would not be accepted.

This Bill is quite simple in its intention but certainly not so simple in its implications. It purports merely to give, as the Minister said, citizenship in a self-governing territory or territorial authority to every African in South Africa. It also provides for the issue to citizens of certificates of citizenship. It is not obligatory on every Bantu to apply for a certificate of citizenship; he is merely entitled to apply for one. Whether he applies for a certificate or not, he automatically will become a citizen of a Bantu homeland. In terms of Clause 3, he shall become a citizen. Therefore, whether he applies or not, willy-nilly he becomes a citizen of a homeland. He will be the only South African citizen who is entitled to a certificate, except those citizens who become naturalized. No other South African gets a certificate, but the Bantu will be given one. Whether he wants it or not he will be given citizenship of a homeland, irrespective of whether he resides or works in the homeland, and irrespective of whether he was born in the homeland or not. He gets this certificate, irrespective of whether the homeland wants him or not. This will happen because the hon. the Minister will have the final say. How will this African be any better off with this new citizenship? What will the citizenship mean to him? What will he get? He will get the franchise in a homeland in which he may have no interest at all. He will enjoy all the rights, privileges and benefits and be subject to all the duties, obligations and responsibilities of citizenship of the territorial authority which are accorded to or imposed upon him by law. It may mean something for the African who lives in the homeland and who is allowed to hire or own a piece of land in the homeland. It will mean that he will not lose the right which he already has. He will not gain any new right, but he will keep the right which he already has. What else will it mean to him? It will not give him a better home life or more security. It will not give him a right which he does not enjoy at present. However, it may subject him to more obligations; it may, for example, subject him to paying a tax which is levied upon him by the self-governing homeland, irrespective of whether he lives there or not. This can be done in the Transkei at present. The hon. the Minister cannot deny that. In terms of the Transkeian Constitution the Transkei Government has the power to tax its citizens no matter where they live. Irrespective of whether or not he lives in his homeland he may be obliged to pay taxes there. Until the homelands become viable sovereign independent states the citizenship being offered to the Bantu now is quite meaningless. It is meaningless because until his homeland becomes independent he will still be subject to all the obligations and responsibilities of a South African citizen. The Government is trying to force dual citizenship on to the Bantu. The only citizenship the Bantu want at present is South African citizenship. The only citizenship which will be recognized internationally is South African citizenship which this Government cannot deprive them of. It is all right saying that they will not be treated as aliens in this country. This Government cannot deprive them of their citizenship. The hon. the Minister is trying to make it meaningful by discriminating against those who do not apply for citizenship. He can do that by giving preference in the issuing of permits for work in urban areas to those who apply for citizenship.

He said so.

We remember that when there was reluctance on the part of Transkeian Xhosas to register as voters of the Transkei an appeal was made by the hon. the Minister. It was then pointed out that they could get certain benefits if they applied to become voters and citizens of the Transkei. Obviously this meant that if they were citizens of the Transkei and could prove that they have registered themselves as voters, they could be given preference in seeking work. And this is what is going to happen. When work seekers come from the homelands to urban areas preference will be given to those who can produce certificates to show that they have accepted Government policy of separate citizenship.

Gentle persuation.

Yes, gentle persuasion. Citizenship should be something definite. Every citizen should know definitely to which country he belongs. It does happen at times that there is uncertainty about a person’s citizenship. This is usually the case when a person changes his citizenship, either voluntarily or involuntarily, when because of a war or some other reason the boundaries of countries are changed. In this Bill, however, the Government is deliberately creating confusion for its citizens by trying to force another citizenship on them, which in itself is not clear. What will be the test of citizenship? The hon. the Minister has already read this particular provision of the Bill. I will do so again. It reads—

1. (a) every Bantu person born in that area, either before or after the commencement of this Act; …

That is quite clear—

1. (b) every Bantu person who is domiciled in that area; …

That is also clear—

1. (c) every Bantu person in the Republic speaking any Bantu language used by the Bantu population of that area, including every Bantu person belonging to any associated linguistic group which normally uses any dialect of any such language; and
2. (d) every other Bantu person in the Republic related to any member of the Bantu population of that area or who has identified himself with any part of such population or who is associated with any part of such population by virtue of his cultural or racial background.

What is wrong with that?

In paragraphs (c) and (d) the determining factors are language or dialects of a language, relationship with members of the population of a particular area or identification with a part of the population of an area, or association with any part of such population by virtue of cultural or racial background. So now you know.

It is not certain how many urban Bantu there are in the country. The figure varies but I presume there are between 3½ million and 4 million. Many of them have contracted ethnically mixed marriages and are therefore related to populations in different areas. Many of them speak many Bantu languages and different dialects. They will therefore qualify for multiple citizenship.

Very nice too.

Admittedly they will have a right of appeal if they find that they are classified in the wrong country. If they do not wish to be Transkeians of Zulus, they can appeal to the Minister against their classification. The Minister will have the final say. Admittedly, too, if a homeland is not satisfied in having a particular citizen thrust upon it through the designated Officer having decided that that Bantu is a citizen of a particular homeland, that homeland can object. It can also appeal to the Minister. The Minister then has the final say. Just imagine what the position will be of an African who having been rejected by the homeland is told by the Minister that he is in fact a citizen of that homeland. Just imagine what his position is going to be in a homeland where they do not want him. What is more, this citizenship is being forced on him. He has not asked for it. He merely wants to be a South African citizen as he is now. And who made him a South African citizen? This Government did when it passed the South African Citizenship Act. He is a South African citizen.

Apart from enabling the Government to juggle with race statistics this citizenship plan can only be explained as part of an ideological concept. This the hon. the Minister in fact did to-night. The Government likes to look upon the peoples of South Africa, as he has said, as separate nations. He tries to persuade the world that he is dealing with a problem of separate nations. They are not racial problems. He is dealing with separate nations. Each of these nations, he says, will be entitled to separate freedoms and separate sovereignty.

Why not?

This theory is vitiated by the facts as they exist in South Africa. The facts are completely against this. There are no separate states. Where there are vestiges of separate states the Bantu belonging to those states cannot possibly live in them. They cannot occupy them.

Why not?

How can every Transkeian go and live in the Transkei? How can the reserves possibly take the Bantu population? Even the Government has accepted that. That hon. member ought to know that the Prime Minister said that numbers no longer counted. [Interjections.] It is because they cannot get them into the reserves.

This Bill is intended to support the imaginings of the Government. The facts are so dear that they cannot deceive anybody. The speech of the hon. the Minister to-night on this Bill represents the collapse of the elaborate apartheid edifice. Due to the inability to achieve meaningful separation of the races, physical separation now becomes passport separation. This is documentary separation. We passed a Bill this morning which has since gone to the Other Place which will enable the hon. the Minister to tell the public that the Government is applying apartheid amongst the workers and that it is bringing about separation. He has had to pass a Bill in order to try and convince them that he is doing something. This is just another example of his documentary apartheid.

This Bill is not necessary at this stage. This is not a matter of urgency. Why must this Bill be passed during this short session of Parliament? Why has it become urgent? There are no prospects of any homeland becoming independent before the 22nd April. There is no prospect of any other territorial authorities being recognized. Why has this Bill become so urgent that it has to be forced through in this short session of Parliament before an election? It is an attempt to rally the “Vorster-Sappe” and to stop them from becoming “Hertzog-Sappe”. What they should realize is that they are overlooking the fact that the members of their party who are now disappearing from their ranks are not joining the “Hertzog-Sappe”. They are joining the genuine “Sappe”. They are joining the United Party, and a measure of this nature is not going to help them, because it is not the verkramptes they have to fight now. It is the United Party they have to fight. The voters have realized that this is impracticable politics. The electorate have been looking for the implementation of the Government’s policy. They are not going to be spoofed and fooled any longer. They are not going to be satisfied with documentary apartheid any longer. They want to see deeds. This Bill is an impracticable measure. It cannot achieve anything. We reject it in the strongest possible terms, and therefore I move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks in pursuance of what the hon. member for Transkei has just said. The first remark is that those hon. members, as they are sitting there, i.e. the members of the United Party, have never over all the years had any realization of the profound task we have with regard to the peoples in South Africa. They have never understood anything of the task which this party has set for itself in South Africa. As regards those hon. members, their concern has never been one which recognizes a task with regard to our peoples. The hon. member for Transkei showed us precisely what their concern was. He said, “After all, these people are not going to have a better family life there. They are not going to have greater security. They will have to pay more tax.” Everything the hon. member said dealt with economic considerations. That is the only concern of that party as regards South Africa’s policy with regard to its peoples. If no economic content can be given to it, as the hon. member for Hillbrow does, by involving the non-Whites in our employment, etc., I wonder whether they would ever have been able to discuss legislation of this kind. For them there must be an economic content, but of the realities of South Africa, and also of the realities of our peoples, of which the Minister told us so brilliantly this evening, those hon. members have never been able to form any concept. Furthermore, they have never accepted that the National Party has set itself a task and that it has a policy which is being implemented logically and step by step. We do not jump from one thing to another as that side of this House does. I regret that I do not have the cutting here, but as recently as 1967 the hon. member for Yeoville said, “Mention is made of our policy. It is so clear, and I cannot understand why people are still asking questions about it.” He said that in 1967. At their congress last year, however, there were complaints: “If only the United Party leadership would tell us what this race federation policy is about, we would understand, but we have to put up candidates in the rural areas and everywhere, and no one knows what this policy is about.” I mention this to show that it was necessary for their own people to complain at a congress, because they did not understand what their policy was about. In contrast to that the National Party has set itself a task of implementing a policy logically and step by step in order to give the Whites in South Africa a safe place to live in and a secure existence. Our policy is also aimed at leading the non-Whites, of whom we are the guardians at the moment, on that road which the hon. the Minister indicated to us.

It is interesting, however, to note what the hon. member for Transkei said. He said: “You are now giving the Bantu a homeland whether they want that homeland or not.” It is very interesting. The homeland is, after all, a reality. Each of these Bantu people, whether they be Zulu, Xhosa or Tswana. can, after all, be related to a specific geographical area in South Africa. Therefore this is a reality. But the hon. member maintained that we were forcing this onto them. In terms of United Party policy, they tell the Bantu: “We want to give you something which is still very far removed from reality, but which we want to make a reality. We want to give you eight white representatives in this Parliament.” Now I ask the hon. member: “If the Bantu do not want to accept that, in what way are they going to use compulsion to ensure that those representatives will be Whites, and that the number will remain at eight?”

The homeland territories are a reality we have in South Africa. The policy of this party fits in with that. Those hon. members only have expectations which they can give the Bantu. Now we simply ask: How are they going to apply compulsion to the Bantu when they demand certain things in connection with this Parliament?” But I shall come back to this. The time has arrived in South Africa not to use only economic arguments in respect of this matter all the time. It is our task, in the development of the Bantu peoples, to see to the economic development of those people as well. But it is so much more important that these people, who have their own languages, who live within their own cultural communities, who have their own traditions and histories. should also be given an identity of their own in this fatherland of ours by means of a process of unscrambling. Those words are important to us as well, not only in respect of the Whites, but also in respect of the non-White peoples, because we are already identifying them.

The emancipation process has, in fact, already caused certain words to fall into disuse in South Africa. Earlier on we simply used the collective term “Bantu”. The hon. the Minister too pointed this out this evening. The words “Bantu”, “African” and “Native” were used and these words simply included all people who, like the Bantu, are dark-skinned. But the emancipation process has already progressed so far that we tend to use that collective term less and less. We are using terms such as “Xhosa”, “Zulu”, “Tswana”, etc., more and more. Why are we doing this? We are doing it because we have good reason to do so. One reason is that those people are called by those names because they are associated with a specific geographical area. Such a person refers to himself as a Xhosa, or a Zulu, or a Tswana. We are taking into account that reality of emancipation, which is taking place more and more.

This Bill is connected with the policy of the National Party, and this is no casual connection. It flows logically from the steps we have already taken by means of the legislation we have placed on the Statute Book. I almost want to say that it follows inevitably on what we have already placed on the Statute Book. If a homeland territory is an inalienable element of our policy, a homeland in which the legitimate inhabitants of that homeland can progress even to full emancipation and eventually to independence, then the granting of citizenship must be a logical next step in the implementation of our policy, and citizenship is in fact an element in the policy of the National Party. The political development of the Bantu is linked to a specific territory. Within that territory, within their traditional and historical homeland, they must exercise their political rights. Therefore it is virtually self evident that they should be citizens of that territory in every sense of the word, constitutionally and legally, on the basis of an Act of this Parliament. By these means a further link with the territory of the homeland is being created, a link with the group of people of whom they form part. They are being imbued with a love for those homeland territories where the have their origins. In all the constitutional development the Bantu have already experienced in South Africa, this is simply the next step. We can go back in history and examine the position from 1910 onwards. The 1913 legislation had as its basis political development associated with a homeland territory. The 1926 legislation has as its basis political development associated with a homeland territory. In this memorandum to which the hon. the Minister referred, we find the various pieces of legislation which have been passed since 1951. There was the Bantu Authorities Act and in 1959 the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act. Arising from that, we have the various territorial authorities. Finally we find the Transkeian Constitution and now this legislation. It is very clear that the thread running through all this is political development associated with a homeland territory, but in this process the element of citizenship was lacking. This constitutional development may be summarized as follows: Separation in the first instance, developing governmental institutions and development within a particular homeland territory, a distinctive group with its own identity and culture, and then finally citizenship. This admirably rounds off this whole identity principle of people who are linked to a certain territory.

It will also pay us to look at what has happened in Africa. The upsurge of nationalism in Africa, especially after the Second World War, found expression in peculiar forms. To our view of thinking it perhaps led to premature independence, and unfortunately it has also left revolt, racial and group conflicts in its wake. But even if there is instability, even if there is uncertainty in many of these governments which came into being as a result of this upsurging nationalism, the fact of the matter is that nationalism in Africa got the upper hand and this has resulted in citizenship of their own states.