Mr. Speaker, I move, as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Government decided to participate in the Water Year, 1970, and to contribute to the funds required for this purpose. Accordingly an amount of R250,000 was set aside for this purpose; R50,000 of this amount was voted for the financial year 1969-’70, and the balance has been included in this year’s draft estimates.

A special committee, called the Finance Committee, is dealing with the financial side and has already opened a banking account, while proper accounts are being kept of the financial transactions.

The Department of Water Affairs has now requested that the books and accounts of the committee be audited by the Controller and Auditor-General. The Controller and Auditor-General is prepared to undertake the audit, and as the State is making a considerable contribution, it is proposed that he should do so. The Controller and Auditor-General, however, is not empowered to do the audit unless Parliament, by resolution of both Houses, in terms of section 58 (2) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1956 (Act No. 23 of 1956), requires him to undertake the audit of the accounts.

Such resolutions have also been taken in the past in respect of, for example, the accounts of the Union Festival Committee and the Republic Festival Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we agree that this motion is in the interests of the country and we support it.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Sir, during the course of the discussions on the previous stages of this Bill, reference was made by several hon. members to the demonstrations which were made available to members on both sides through the hon. the Minister and his predecessor and to explanations given by the Secretary (Mr. Du Preez) and by Mr. Fourie, his assistant. I want to say that we appreciated the explanations so far as the mechanical aspects of this scheme were concerned. There have been suggestions that we did not vociferously raise complaints with these departmental gentlemen but, Sir, it would have been most improper for us to have raised matters except for the purpose of obtaining elucidation as to what the scheme contains and what was envisaged, which we did. We posed our questions to them as to how they visualized this scheme would operate but the question of the advisability of this scheme as affecting the individual was obviously a matter for this House and is still a matter for this House and not for the officials, who merely carry out such legislation as is approved by this House. Sir, whilst we have had those explanations on the mechanical aspects and the administrative side of the scheme, we have now reached the third-reading stage and I must say that the hon. the Minister has not reacted satisfactorily to many of the suggestions made by us from this side to improve this legislation during the Committee Stage.

I think it should be understood by all hon. members that the scheme which we now have before us is a departure from the scheme as envisaged in 1968 and contemplated thereafter. It is an entirely different scheme, with basically only two things still retained and that is the register and some form of identification. Sir, at the previous stages of this measure we made our attitude quite clear and that still remains our attitude at this stage of the Bill. We accept the establishment of a central physical registry, and we regard it as a more convenient method of providing for the safe keeping of documents which relate to individuals. That registry has obvious advantages. The registry which will now be established will contain a record of the licences and other authorities granted to that individual citizen and will be accessible in the personal file. The hon. the Minister has given the assurance that that personal file will be regarded as personal and confidential in so far as that can be enforced administratively. There are obvious advantages in having this personal file, with all this information together in the registry, advantages from the point of view of defence purposes, civil defence and the extraction of particulars by the individuals concerned.

But, Sir, this registry could have been created without legislation; it is purely an administrative operation, and even at this stage, with a Bill as we have it before us now, there are voids in the administrative aspects of the Bill. No legislation is necessary to replace outmoded practices within a Department or with-in Government circles by modern business methods. I hope that it is a normal tendency within State Departments to brush up the administration. In fact I believe a call was made by the Prime Minister after the election, a call which fell on deaf ears, for a brushing up of administrative efficiency on the part of his Government.

Sir, we have expressed doubts, and these doubts still remain as to whether this system as a whole is practicable. We have expressed the fear that the scheme will absorb considerable funds and considerable manpower. Unfortunately after 20 years we have not been able to obtain from the Department or from the hon. the Minister any idea as to the cost to the country of the maintenance of the present register in terms of the Population Registration Act, and as this Bill comes before us at the third reading to-day we want to make it clear to the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House will expect a careful record to be maintained as to the administration of this Bill, the cost of it and the manpower that is consumed in the administration of this Bill. It is true that the Secretary of the Department of the Interior does not present a departmental report to this House. In so far as his particular undertaking and its magnitude is concerned, we feel that the Minister should be warned at this stage that he will be faced with requests for information that has not been available in the past. We would like the hon. the Minister in the future to give us progress reports with regard to the application of this Act. We should like him to tell us to what extent these personal files have in fact been consolidated and to what extent they are complete in the register. This is a heavy task which, if this Bill is approved, will fall on the shoulders of the Department. Secondly, there is the question, a question of which we have no knowledge whatsoever, of the actual cost, both in money and in personnel, first of all to re-establish this register and then to maintain it in an effective state if it is to be of any use. We will also require to have information from time to time as to the efficacy of these change-of-address notifications.

Sir, we have reached the third reading of this Bill without any indication whatsoever from the hon. the Minister as to how many changes of address have been notified to the Department and have been incorporated in the register in the 20 years since the Population Registration Act was passed. We are being asked now to perpetuate this legislation to a greater extent, but for 20 years it has been an offence punishable by prosecution for an individual whose name is on the register to fail to notify his change of address. I want to suggest to the Minister that it would probably be an exaggeration to say that .001 per cent of the population have notified their changes of address to the Department. There are 6,500,000 identity cards under the law as it now stands. Unfortunately the Minister and his predecessors have kept no records and have no records available to tell us how many changes of address have in fact been registered over the last 20 years. Sir, if that has not been done over the past 20 years, then it is futile now to go on and to add further responsibilities with regard to notification of changes of address. The Minister has expressed the hope that there will not be requests for certified copies of documents. Some other system, which is still to be worked out by way of regulation, will be applied. Sir, we would like to know in future—and we will ask the Minister for this information—whether in fact there is any reduction in applications for loose copies of marriage certificates and birth certificates which are needed from time to time by various individuals.

As regards the remaining provisions of this Bill, we remain unconvinced that it should be passed in the form in which it now stands. The identity document will be bulky. It will contain documents and information which are unnecessary for the sole purpose of identification. The supply of information in the documents is purely permissive now and even if permissive entries are made, the documents will remain incomplete. The individual will not be relieved of the responsibility of retaining a host of other documents which are required by law, and it is unfortunate that the hon. the Minister in selecting the items to be included in the document did not cover the whole field. Sir, the purpose of this Bill is to facilitate the retention of documents by the persons concerned. It is very interesting to know that the employer of a Bantu servant has to comply with three requirements. He has to satisfy himself that the Bantu has a certificate of employment; he must pay a monthly employment fee and a monthly residence fee. And so one could go on to a multitude of documents if the Bill was designed to give effect to a filing system for the multitude of documents which have to be carried by the individual. We shall in this regard, as I said before, ask the Minister for details in regard to the practicability of this Bill if it is adopted by the House, because we see grave difficulties in making this work in any effective manner.

I want to refer to one final matter on which, during the course of the debate, the hon. the Minister has given us assurances which we naturally accept, namely that attention will be given to avoiding unnecessary prosecution under this Bill of juveniles for failing to comply with its terms in regard to applying for documents. We have asked the hon. the Minister to see that that was put into the Act, but unfortunately he has again declined to accept an amendment to put in that statutory safeguard which we would have preferred. The Bill as it now is, is as unsatisfactory as it was when we opposed it at the second reading for the reasons which have been stated during this debate, and we now see no reason for changing our attitude. Therefore we oppose the third reading of this Bill.

It is interesting to note that the hon. member for Green Point’s objections were reduced to only a few after they obtained the information in the Committee Stage. If I may now summarize what I consider to be the chief objection at this stage, I want to state that, in the first place, this objection involves practicability. The hon. member for Green Point has now indicated that, as far as they are concerned, there is no real objection to this central register, and that they accept the principle, but then he goes so far as to say that this part of the administration could have been carried out without any legislation whatsoever. This is an interesting thought, but now the hon. member comes along and contradicts himself in the very next thought he expressed, in the sense that he nevertheless has doubts about the practicability of the register’s compilation. In the first place I want to dwell briefly on the practicability, because this is linked, more than anything else, with the question of the individual’s change of address. Their other objection is against the identity document as such, which is supposedly now going to violate the individual’s privacy.

I first want to come back to the question of change of address. In the Second Reading, and also in the Committee Stage, the hon. the Minister indicated that the corner-stone, as he called it, of this whole system was based on the co-operation of the public, in the sense that the public will have to be compelled to give notice of their changes of address. If that basic element is not complied with, then the rest of the legislation is, in actual fact, null and void. In now expressing his doubts about the practical measures being taken to bring that obligation home to the individual, in expressing those doubts and saying that legislation was not necessary in the establishment of the central register, the hon. member is obviously contradicting himself. Each of us realizes that the provision being made in this Act for changes of address, and the obligations being placed upon the individual and other persons in that connection, inevitably cannot be our final answer to that problem. We realize only too well that in practice we shall still probably pick up quite a few problems in respect of the changes of address, but this is specifically where the task lies, a task not only for the Government, but in particular for the Opposition as well. The nature of this task is that we should give positive information and encouragement to our people, over whom we have control and to whom we have access, to comply with these basic obligations. It will be no use our coming here to a second or third reading, shrugging our shoulders, throwing our hands in the air and saying that the people are in any case not going to do this. Our task is to ensure that the people are informed, so that they know that they must comply with those obligations.

I think the Opposition realizes the practical benefit of this legislation. I think they realize that by means of this Act a large portion of the State machine is being streamlined so that one may improve the performance of certain duties and so that one may, in a practical manner, furnish the public with a better service. Since it is specifically they who proclaim from the roof tops, as the hon. member did once more this afternoon, that this Government created chaos in its administration, that it is obsolete and ineffective, I want to draw the conclustion to-day, and I believe I am justified in doing so, that the Opposition’s resistance to this legislation is based purely on political considerations, i.e. that they do not want to ensure the streamlining of Government administration, in order that they may continue with agitation whenever a man cannot obtain a birth certificate quickly enough, so that they can attribute this to poor administration by the Government. For that reason they will not co-operate in this legislation and would much rather sow suspicion about confidential matters which will now be made public, etc. The plain and simple basic task which will be imposed upon our people will merely involve the notification of changes of address, and all that the Opposition, on its part, has to do is to contribute towards educating the public in that respect.

I can now imagine that the obligation placed on home owners and house agents, in respect of the tenant’s address, could become quite a simple matter in practice. I imagine that when a tenant has to come along to the lessor or the agent to sign his lease, it would be normal procedure for that person to assist the tenant in his change of address. That story to the effect that it would now be necessary to give this book to the caretaker, who could ferret through the whole thing in order to have the address changed, is a little far-fetched. The hon. member for Durban (Point) came to light with quite a few practical suggestions, and it is just a pity that he tried to present them in a negative way. He asked why we did not link the question of change of address, for example, to the provision of electricity, so that when a man applied for electricity to be supplied to a certain address, this should be linked to his change of address. I want to agree with him that there could be such a measure, and likewise there could quite possibly be several other measures which could also be incorporated into this system, if we do not succeed with the basic system for which provision is now being made. But I nevertheless want to express the hope that all our Government Departments will eventually be adjusted to the identity number of the individual, and that there will be the necessary liaison between these departments and the central register, because from time to time people must, of necessity, notify certain departments of changes of address, for example the Receiver of Revenue. There must be this liaison between the Receiver of Revenue and the central register when these people obtain new information about changes of address. But I foresee that these identity documents and the central register could become such an integral part of our life pattern that these problems that we now anticipate solving within the space of five years, will, in fact, be solved, so that people will eventually refer with pride to this document, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) now refers with pride to the identity card he is carrying around with him.

As far as the document itself is concerned, we believe that it will eventually become very popular with the public, popular in the sense that one will now have here a combination of all the documents one may need from time to time, essential documents which at this stage are scattered around to quite an extent. Sir, if you were to ask me to-day where my birth certificate was I would not really know. [Interjections.] Whether the hon. member for Durban (Point) ever received one, I do not know. Equally, I would not know where my marriage certificate was if I were asked. I took out my present driver’s licence when I was still a fine young lad. To-day I can virtually not recognize myself. In this book you will therefore resemble your present self more closely.

The doubts expressed about scratching in people’s private affairs are only flights of the imagination. Hon. members have had the opportunity of seeing the format of the proposed document. The data contained in it is arranged in such a way that when one is required to prove one’s identity one could do so by just showing the first page. The other information is therefore not visible. The same applies to any other information required from you— only that is visible at that particular moment. Hon. members objected to ladies having to reveal their ages in future. The hon. member for Durban (Point) almost waxed lyrical about this. But the days when a lady was ashamed of her age are long past. In the enlightened times we are living in to-day measurements and weight count for far more than age. Just look at how to-day’s young ladies are tinting their hair grey to achieve the maturity of age which goes with the measurements and weight. As I see it, the only persons who may be detrimentally affected by the carrying of such a document, are those old wolves who gad about with young girls and who may now be asked to produce their documents. That is the only disadvantage I can see in this document.

There is one advantage of this system that we here must perceive, particularly because we are now involved, i.e. its use for election purposes. Hon. member who could attend the demonstration in Johannesburg at the time, had an insight into the possibilities of the system in this regard. For example, the voters’ roll could be compiled at very short notice, i.e. if changes of address are kept up to date. We would therefore no longer need to wait six months for a voters’ roll when a lightning election has been decided upon. Under this system the compilation of a voters’ roll could take place at short notice. And this could be done in a way which would satisfy the political parties. For example, some of us want it alphabetically, while others want it in street order. And when we have such a fresh voters’ roll, on which the names of all must, of necessity, appear, it is going to facilitate postal votes. If the voters’ roll is in street order and one comes to a number where a person lives Who does not belong there, one knows immediately that this is a case for a special or postal vote. Here the identity document will be of assistance. When a voter gives notification of his change of address, he will be notified of his constituency and his polling district. This will eliminate the present-day confusion when, after a general delimitation, people sometimes have no idea in which constituencies they fall. Under this proposed system a person will know where he is registered, and he may go along to any presiding officer, produce the necessary slip, and exercise a special vote. The benefits and the savings of the proposed system in this connection are legion.

Hon. members inevitably strongly emphasized the question of expense. I do not want to venture into that like the hon. member for Orange Grove did yesterday—he is a specialist when it comes to juggling with figures. I think we may nevertheless accept that the initial expenses will be extraordinarily high, but then we must remember that these will not be repetitive expenses. What is more, the services to be eliminated by this system will in themselves be a tremendous saving. In a debate last year the hon. the Minister of the Interior mentioned the cost of arranging a general registration, and in spite of that, as we know, we still do not obtain a correct voters’ roll. Interim registration could also be eliminated in future.

Then there is still the question of manpower. Owing to other obligations the hon. member for Green Point could, unfortunately, not attend the demonstration which the Department arranged for us. Therefore he could not see how changes of address are going to be done. It is actually done by only a few persons, because a computer is used for the purpose, as well as a microfilm on which millions of names are stored and from which, by the press of a button, one can obtain particulars in a fraction of a second. Work by hand is therefore largely eliminated.

In conclusion I cannot neglect to praise the officials, who provisionally investigated this system and prepared a basis for this legislation, for what they did in this connection. I think we have here a piece of legislation which is going to give us the lead over many other countries who ought, in fact, to be leading us in this respect. That is the reason why we wholeheartedly support this Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we have opposed various sections of this Bill on various grounds, but essentially because we are concerned about the liberties of the individual and are afraid that this measure might bring encroachments on the freedom and liberty of the individual. We are concerned about safeguarding his personal dignity and privacy. We are also concerned about the practicability, the convenience and cost of the procedure being introduced by this Bill. Our attitude to it has been clearly stated by the hon. member for Green Point, and he has explained in detail why we are not entirely satisfied. We recognize that the intention of this Bill is to introduce new methods of efficiency, of streamlining and mechanization. But we feel that these aims, desirable though they may be, should not override the importance of the maintenance of personal freedoms and dignities. We shall, therefore, continue to be vigilant about these things and watch the operation of this measure with great care.

I should now like to refer to a different aspect, to what I may call an inadvertent feature of the Bill. I refer to clause 16 and particularly to paragraph (k) of subsection (1) which provides that the State President may make regulations in regard to the issue of certificates or particulars contained in the register or in an identity document, the purposes for which such certificates may be used, and the evidential value of such certificates. This seems to me to be an unfortunate use of words.

The “evidential value” of a certificate appears at face value to refer to the value in evidence of such a document. One is inclined to see this as a reference to the value of the document when produced in a court of law and when it is judged as a piece of evidence.

Now, Sir, we are very jealous of the independence of our judiciary. We know that the courts have their own rules, their own laws and their own precedents for judging the validity of evidence brought before them. It is certainly not the task of the executive to state or to dictate to the courts how they should judge the falsity or the truth of evidence laid before them, how they should judge the correctness or the incorrectness of such evidence. It alarms me therefore that these words might be misinterpreted. It might be that they will be misinterpreted in the future by civil servants or by courts before whom these words are brought and who did not have the benefit of the explanations which the hon. the Minister gave us last evening. I think the Bill should say what it means. I am fully satisfied that the hon. the Minister was entirely genuine, when he explained the position last night, in saying that the purpose of this subsection is to provide that these documents, when produced, should have authenticity or official validity. In other words, he intends that the State President should be empowered to make regulations establishing the official validity of these documents, so that they may do the things which they purport to do. I am quite sure that it was not the hon. the Minister’s intention to produce, as a kind of by-product to this Bill, an encroachment on the independence of our courts.

It is rather late in the day to produce an amendment and I do not propose to do so. I am also not entirely sure whether it will be possible to do so because these words occur in a subsection which was put up for amendment last night and was rejected. I would however like to make a constructive suggestion in this respect. The hon. the Minister will be piloting this Bill through Another Place. If he agrees that the proposal I have made and the argument I have put forward have some merit and some validity I appeal to him to take that opportunity to put this right by substituting words which we feel would clarify the situation and protect the country against something which is unintended but which has the seeds of a dangerous situation in it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin with the objection which the hon. member for Von Brandis raised against the proposed section 20 (1) (k). It appears that his anticipation of the danger is actually, and I say this with respect to the hon. member, a blunder. We have numerous statutory regulations which regulate the value of certain State documents. Those provisions usually mean that a document which appears on the surface to be a true copy, signed by the relevant person mentioned in the provision, is prima facie proof of the information contained in it. This is all one could anticipate would happen when the State President is able to define the value of this certificate in terms of the powers afforded him by clause 16. One does not see anything sinister in that. It is prima facie proof. This means that it is proof on the face of it, but that proof could still be refuted in our courts by any additional evidence. I do not think the hon. member need feel oppressed in respect of the matter he touched upon under this clause.

Mr. Speaker, this population register to which we are giving final shape at present will be a population register which one would actually find only in a modern state where one’s body politic is keeping pace with modern developments. I personally cannot believe that such a population register, as envisaged, could in any way have been possible at a time when computers did not exist. Thanks to the advent of the computer this register is made possible. Thanks to the computer one can, by means of 13 figures arranged in a particular manner, store up for every citizen in South Africa certain data which can in fact be made available within seconds by pressing a few buttons. With this development, if for some or other reason John Citizen cannot use his book, and must have recourse to his register, the whole procedure of filling in forms and so on is eliminated, because by presenting his number all the information he desires about himself can be obtained. Here the State could also, by way of pushbutton selection, obtain a wealth of information within a question of minutes, or perhaps a little longer, simply because the register had been established. The hon. member for Tygerberg has already elaborated on this. As was indicated, this could be done in a street, regional, age or sex context.

To come along then and say that this does not justify the expense, is far-fetched. This information, which can be stored in a computer, is there specifically to reduce expenses. Among other things the aspect of expense to the man in the street is going to be reduced, owing to the fact that he no longer has to pay for copies of the certificates he wants. He will simply need to take his book to a magistrate to have a certified copy made of any document that he wants a copy of. I want to reject the idea of high costs altogether. This computer is going to make a number of clerical personnel redundant. It is not going to make them jobless. It is going to make them available to other fields of Government administration or to the private sector, where there is at present a shortage of these people. In this connection one thinks of the enormous staff the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths needs in order to keep all the necessary entries up to date.

I also foresee that possible faults could hereby be eliminated. From time to time it is brought to one’s attention that a marriage certificate, a birth certificate or some other certificate is faulty, merely as a result of an oversight. As a result of one small figure incorrectly written down, confusion could result. Here we have eliminated that confusion through the person’s number being linked to his date of birth, and one could therefore easily refer back to the documents in the register.

Sir, I also believe that it would also relieve the burden of the manpower shortage in the Department as such. I think that the Department concerned suffers greatly from this shortage. This register will make it possible for a few people to do the work of many. The Opposition strongly opposed this legislation. The hon. member for Green Point tried to indicate this afternoon why the Opposition had actually gone back on its decision. I do not want to look for any more trouble with him about that, except to tell him that as far as I am concerned, his excuse still does not hold water. In conclusion I now want to ask the hon. member: If in the far distant future his party were ever to come into power, and if he were perhaps to become Minister of the Interior, would he abolish this legislation? Would he nullify these measures, which we are now accepting? I wonder if he would tell the speaker who is to follow me what his attitude is, because if he would abolish it we would know on the eve of the provincial election that the United Party will abolish this population register, if by chance they were to come to power one day. The hon. member may now tell us if he would do so. I do not believe that the Opposition would do it.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the Opposition is beginning to appreciate the mechanical aspects of this population register and the identity document system, because it is impossible for any clear-thinking person to argue against the logic of a system such as this. This system is the result of very thorough investigations. It is based on the best system we could find in the Western European countries. It is intended to be to the benefit of South Africa and its people. Therefore one can understand why the Opposition has at last given up the struggle of arguing about the mechanics, as they call it. However, because they want to oppose the measure on account of certain ulterior political motives, they resort to a number of fallacious arguments, one of which is that this is a deviation from the old system. They are apparently referring to the original proposal that passports be incorporated. As I have indicated, this was changed because the incorporation of the passport in this “I.D.” was found to be unpractical. This should be clear to those hon. members as well. This measure is therefore not a deviation. The measure before this House is actually an extension of the existing system, in order to meet the needs of a modern state. If one thinks of the tremendous population growth in our own country and of our economic and scientific developments, one must begin to realize what the position will be in twenty years’ time, and what the need will then be to gain better control and to obtain the data required to ensure proper planning for the future. It has been said that we could have extended this register without legislation. That is of course absolute nonsense. In terms of this measure a number of statutory obligations are being imposed on the individual, which was not the case with the old measure. Statutory obligations are also being imposed on the co-responsible persons who will assist with the changes of address, about which a big fuss was made yesterday. For that reason it is obvious that a measure such as this is necessary. The other fallacious argument resorted to by the Opposition was whether it would be practicable. I think the hon. members must take note of the way we are governing the State at the moment and must take into account the findings in connection with this investigation. The Opposition will now have to try to muster its confidence.

Time will tell.

Yes, time will tell, but we are prepared to withstand the test of time. For that reason I should like to tell the hon. members the following. The hon. members said that they would examine this critically. I would welcome it if the Opposition took a critical look at the expenditure involved in this, the manpower position this would entail and the effectiveness of this. The Opposition’s critical examination of these matters would also have its advantages and would help to expand knowledge of this system further. If the hon. members want to debate this matter annually on the appropriate Vote, I personally will welcome it. The hon. members will be able to do so on the basis of the Controller and Auditor-General’s Report. It is not only the hon. members on that side of the House who will examine the financial expenditure involved in this. The Controller and Auditor-General will examine it, even before the hon. members do, and he will report on it.

The hon. the Minister has not explained why the information in regard to the cost to date of this register which has been maintained for the last 20 years, is not available. We have asked for that information, but it is not available.

The main reason is that we have not had a computer system until the present time. Only now that we can switch over to a computer system and with the present manpower position are we able to keep the system up to date. Because of our manpower shortage, we could not keep the present register in the form in which we would all have liked to keep it, i.e. up to date and with the latest changes of address. With this computer system and with the statutory obligations introduced by this measure involves, we see our way clear to keeping this system up to date in future.

In conclusion I just want to say that I shall welcome a critical examination by the Opposition. It can only contribute towards making this system better known and also better appreciated. This system will be a great asset to South Africa, because basically it is intended to serve this modern expanding state and the people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is related to the Population Registration Amendment Bill, which we have just passed. By way of introduction I should like to mention that it is being proposed that the envisaged new system of population identification which will be introduced in the Republic should also be applied in the Territory of South-West Africa. I have already, during the discussion of the Second Reading of the Population Registration Amendment Bill, given an extensive elucidation of the planned system, as well as the benefits which it will entail for the State and for the public, and I am not going to reiterate them here. However, I can just mention that the system will also result in the same benefits for the inhabitants of the Territory. The Administration of South-West Africa, of course, welcomes the application of the envisaged system in the Territory.

It was, however, decided not to make the Population Registration Act, which deals with classification of the population as Whites, Coloureds and Bantu, applicable to the Territory, and that is why it is therefore necessary to introduce a separate Bill which will make possible the issuing of consolidated identity documents to the inhabitants of South-West Africa. Because it would be undesirable and also unpractical, however, to maintain a separate central register and address bureau for the Territory, provision is being made in the Population Registration Amendment Bill for the inclusion of the names and of certain particulars of those persons in South-West Africa to whom identity documents have been issued in terms of this Bill. In this regard hon. members are referred to clauses 3 and 5 of said Population Registration Amendment Bill. It will be noted, however, that the other provisions, except section 10 (clause 7) with regard to notification of change of address, of the Population Registration Act will not be applicable to the inhabitants of the Territory. In addition, this Bill was published for general information and for comment in the Gazette and it has also been upon the Table of this House for some considerable time now. By this time therefore hon. members should be fully conversant with its contents.

I nevertheless want to make use of this opportunity to furnish a brief explanation of the clauses concerned. Clause 1 comprises the definition of certain terms used in the Bill, and is self-explanatory. In regard to the definition of “Secretary” however, I should like to mention that the definition has been framed in such detail in order to make provision for delegation. In clause 2 provision is being made for the issuing of identity documents to the inhabitants of the Territory, and it also provides what particulars those documents may contain. The particulars are the same as those which will be included in the identity documents of persons in the Republic. In addition, the particulars concerning his marital state, paragraph (e), the particulars of immunisations which may be added, paragraph (f), and particulars concerning his blood group, allergies, etc., paragraph (g), will only be furnished in a person’s identity document if he so desires.

In addition a proviso has been included, i.e. that the particulars as referred to in paragraphs (k) and (1), i.e. those dealing with elections, will only be included in the identity document after a date fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette. The reason for this is that the identity document cannot be utilized for election purposes before every voter or potential voter is in possession of such document and it has been established that the particulars in the register are fundamentally correct and are being kept up to date.

Just as in the Republic an identity document will also be issued to a child immediately after the registration of his birth in the place of a birth certificate. However, this document will lapse when he attains the age of 16 years, and he will then have to make application for the more comprehensive identity documents in respect of a person of the age of 16 years or more, and furnish the necessary photographs.

Clause 3 provides that an identity number shall be assigned to every person to whom an identity document is issued. The identity number shall also be compiled out of figures and shall consist, in addition to a serial and a control number, of a reproduction of the prescribed particulars, and no other particulars whatsoever, of the person to whom it has been assigned. The identity number for the inhabitants of the Territory of South-West Africa will be the same as that for the inhabitants of the Republic of South-West Africa, except in respect of race classification because, as I have already said, the Population Registration Act will not be applicable to them. Instead of race classification the population group and not the race group, in other words, Nama, Baster, etc., to which a person belongs according to the information which he himself has furnished, will be included in the identity number. For this reason, it is being proposed that the information which the identity number will contain, or out of which it is compiled, shall be prescribed by regulation.

As hon. members will note from subclauses (3) and (4) of clause 10, any regulations made in terms of this Bill shall be laid upon the Table in the Senate and the House of Assembly, which therefore entails that Parliament will have a say in this matter; that is, will be able to accept or reject them.

Clause 4 makes provision for the furnishing of relevant particulars with a view to the issuing of identity documents. It is provided herein that every person, or in the case of a person who has not attained the age of 16 years, his guardian, shall furnish the Secretary with the particulars which are required for the issuing of his identity documents on the prescribed forms. In the case of the birth of a child the notification of his birth is deemed to be the furnishing of the particulars for the purposes of this clause.

Clause 5 deals with photographs. In subclause (1) it is provided that every person to whom an identity document is issued in terms of clause 2. except a person under the age of 16 years, shall, at his own expense and as often as it is or becomes necessary to issue an identity document to him, or when the photographs which such person has furnished are no longer a recognizable image of the person concerned, furnish the Secretary with two copies of a recent photograph of himself.

Subclause (2) provides that one photograph shall be placed in the identity document and that the other copy shall be filed in the register.

All that is being done in clause 6 is to state the requirements in regard to the surrender of identity documents which contained particulars which are incorrect, and does not require any further elucidation.

Clause 7 deals with the notification of change of postal address and residence. In subclause (1) an obligation is being imposed upon the person in respect of himself or his ward to notify the Secretary in a prescribed way within fourteen days, or in a particular case, such longer period as the Secretary may allow, of any permanent change in the place of residence or postal address.

The proposed provisions in subclauses (2) and (3) are control measures, and those in subclauses (4) and (5) consequential provisions. These are being proposed in order to ensure that the statutory requirements in this regard are complied with.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that without the addresses of the members of the population, the value of the central register will be restricted and the address bureau will be virtually useless. Notification of change of address by persons to whom identity documents have been issued is therefore indispensable for the proper maintenance of the address bureau. It is realized that it cannot be expected that each and every person will comply with the statutory requirements in this regard from the very outset, nor is it the intention to take drastic steps in a summary way. It is expected that the issuing of identity documents to the present population will extend over a period of approximately five years if nothing unforeseen occurs—after its commencement on 1st June, 1971—and this will go hand in hand, I want to emphasize, with intensive instruction of the public, over the radio, through the Press and through the other communication media in order to ensure that our people are properly informed in regard to this system and as to what it entails, what it signifies to them and what the requirements in that regard are. In many other countries, the introduction of this identity document system produced very few problems. In fact, in many countries where we instituted investigations almost no problems had been encountered. The people had been properly informed regarding the matter: they had been fully prepared for the introduction of the system and I have no doubt that our population, which is also a reasonably well-informed population will in due course have a full understanding of this system and come to appreciate it.

Clause 8 deals with the production of identity documents and the provisions in subclauses (1), (2) and (3) are basically the same as those laid down in clause 10 of the Population Registration Amendment Bill, 1970. Subclause (4) is deemed necessary because it is foreseen that the State President will be asked to make the production of identity documents compulsory, inter alia, in the following circumstances—

1. (a) to immunizing officers when children are being immunized against poliomyelitis and smallpox;
2. (b) to licensing authorities when the firearms licences or drivers’ licences are being issued; and
3. (c) to marriage officers by the prospective marriage partners.

It will however be possible to grant exemptions in terms of the provisions of clause 12.

Clause 9 provides that except in certain cases the particulars in the register and identity documents may not be published or communicated. However, the Secretary may, under certain circumstances, in fact do the following. He can—

1. (a) furnish any Department of State, any local authority or statutory body, for any of the purposes of that Department, authority or body, with any particulars recorded in the register and address bureau in relation to any person to whom an identity document has been issued; and
2. (b) on payment of any fee which may be prescribed, furnish any person upon written application by him with any particulars recorded in the register and address bureau in relation to any person, provided the Secretary is satisfied that it is in the interests of the last-mentioned person that such particulars be furnished.

In clause 10 the necessary powers to make regulations vested in the State President are laid down, and these are also so obvious that they do not at this stage justify any explanation. We can though, if necessary, discuss them in the Committee Stage. Attention should once again be drawn to the fact that all regulations which will be made, must be laid upon the Table in both Houses of Parliament, and are therefore subject to the approval and/or disapproval of Parliament.

Clause 11 contains the offences and penalties which most certainly need not be dealt with now in detail either.

In clause 12 it is provided that the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette exclude, for a specified or unspecified period, from the provisions of this Act, or exempt, for a specified or unspecified period and either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in the proclamation, from any specified provisions thereof, any class of persons, and may in like manner amend or withdraw any such proclamation. In this connection I should like to explain that the registration of the Native nations of the Territory; the Ovambo, the Okavango, the Kaokolanders, the East-Caprivians, the Hereros, the Berg Damaras and the Bushmen, will be the responsibility either of that nation’s own authorities or of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. A system which is fundamentally the same as the one envisaged in this Bill can be developed and applied to all, with this difference that the administrative authorities of such ethnic grouns will themselves exercise responsibility for the application thereof, as has been foreseen in the Development of Self-Government for Native Nations in South-West Africa Act. It may therefore be necessary to exempt the Native nations of the Territory of all or some of the provisions of this Bill. The same can in future also apply to the Nama and Baster nations, but it is the intention, from the very outset, to make the same identity documents available to members of the latter two ethnic groups and the Coloureds and white groups. It may however he necessary to exempt members of the Nama and Rehoboth nations from the provisions of clause 7, the provision relating to notification of changes of address, if such members change their address in their own respective territories.

Clause 13 provides that the Bill shall also apply in the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel, and clause 14 contains the short title and provides that the Bill shall come into operation on a date fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette.

This Bill is primarily aimed at providing the inhabitants of South-West Africa with a service, a service which will be of great benefit and advantage to them. Consequently I trust that both sides of this House will give this measure their full support.

If we were convinced that this Bill was being directed at rendering a service to the inhabitants of South-West Africa, we would have supported it. However, we are far from being convinced that that is in fact what this Bill does. The Minister has indicated that we have now dealt with the establishment of a register and that the register of people permanently resident in South-West Africa will be kept in the Republic. In his presentation of this Bill he suggested that it was mainly complementary to the provisions of the measure which we have only just read a Third Time.

But with respect I want to say that that is not so. There are, in fact, some material differences between this Bill and the provisions of the Bill just dealt with. This measure, in conjunction with the measure just passed, clarifies at least one aspect of the law in regard to race classification, and that is that as a result of the repeal of section 22 of the South African Act of 1950 it can no longer be made operative in South-West Africa. So one looks at this Bill before us now as being a separate entity from the application of the 1950 Population Registration Act to South-West Africa except for the specific purposes of the register. I accept that I am correct in saying that that is the only application that Act will have.

Let us now have a look at this measure. First of all I should like to refer to a matter about which we have had considerable discussion under the Bill we have just passed, i.e. the question of the identity number. The Minister will remember that it has been clearly stated what the identity number for residents of the Republic shall contain and what shall be encoded therein. Why, then, is there in this Bill an entirely different approach to the compilation of the identity number? Whereas in the other Bill it is clearly stated what shall be encoded in that number, this Bill in clause 3 (2) provides that—

What are the prescribed particulars? This Bill is silent as to what those particulars are. I want to go further. I have searched for this, but the manner in which those particulars shall be prescribed is left out of this Bill entirely. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can help me in this regard. I find no power under clause 10 for regulations to prescribe the particulars that shall be encoded in this identity number. We are now giving a blanket authority to prescribe what shall be encoded into an identity number. We know that as far as the Republic is concerned, one aspect is our race classification. There is no race classification as such in South-West Africa. There is, however, a classification which applies to the electoral laws of the country. This classification for electoral purposes is done on a different basis and according to the laws of South-West Africa.

A further point on which we need some clarification and which is certainly not clear either from the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech or from the Bill itself, is in regard to the compilation also of the identity documents. Here we have the permissive authority regarding what may be included. I do not intend to repeat certain arguments put forward in regard to the other measure of this nature. I trust the hon. the Minister will regard them as having been included in any remarks made in regard to this Bill as to why we are opposed to the nature of the identity document. We have dealt with those, but here again there is a permissive provision as to what should be included.

I should like to put forward another objection in regard to this Bill, and in doing so I should like to refer to clause 2 (4), which reads as follows:

In other words, a South African or a person permanently resident in the Republic, is classified and issued with a South African identification card, on which the race classification is included. He must carry that card with him. It is deemed to be a document issued in terms of the identity documents for South-West Africa legislation. I believe that is undesirable. If race classification is not to apply in South-West Africa, a person who assumes permanent residence in South-West Africa should be entitled to receive a new identification document as a South-West African resident. He should not necessarily have to carry with him the document issued to him in the Republic.

I should like to come to another aspect to which we have objection, as we had in the other Bill. That is our objection to the obligation of notification of change of address. I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that the provisions of this Bill go far wider than the provisions of the Population Registration Amendment Bill. In terms of this Bill the landlord or host in the Republic is obliged to report to the Registrar in South Africa any person who comes there and who has not notified his change of address himself. I wonder why the hon. the Minister has found it necessary to include clause 7 (5), which reads as follows:

In other words, every landlord in the Republic is now answerable not only for his fellow republican citizens who are permanently resident here, but also for every South-West African who might come and take up residence in his property in the Republic. It seems to me a further onerous obligation which will be very difficult to enforce. I trust the hon. the Minister will not expect us on this side of the House to support this provision.

There are the other objections which are consistent with our objections to the first Bill. We are not prepared to support a measure which allows the Government to govern by regulation to the extent that this Bill does. Regulations will prescribe the composition of the identity numbers, regulations will prescribe what shall go into an identity document within the orbit of this vast number, regulations will prescribe the application of this Act and when it will be enforceable and regulations will say whether the whole of the population of South-West Africa or only portion thereof is to be subject to this Bill. In addition we believe that this document which is contemplated is clumsy, bulky, unnecessary and should not be applied to the citizens of South-West Africa who should be entitled to a handy, useful and simple form of identification. For those reasons we will oppose this measure and not support the Second Reading thereof.

Mr. Speaker, with this Bill before the House we have reached an important milestone in the history of South-West Africa. I am very pleased that the Opposition is adopting this standpoint to-day, i.e. that they are not disputing this legislation. The hon. member for Green Point has in fact raised certain objections to certain clauses. This we can thrash out properly in the Committee Stage. South-West Africa is in many respects of course different from the Republic of South Africa. There is for example the question of an address. In South-West Africa we still have a large Bushman population, a nomadic nation which is here to-day and gone to-morrow. It will therefore not be possible to deal in all respects as precisely with the population of South-West Africa as with that of the Republic of South Africa. But there is another reason as well why I am glad that the Opposition is not disputing this legislation in principle to-day.

Where do you get that from; were you listening?

Are you opposed to it in principle? If hon. members are opposed in principle to that Bill, then I want to say that they do not have the right to be opposed to it in principle. Who represents them in South-West Africa? On behalf of whom are hon. members speaking? Do you know that the hon. Opposition does not have one single seat in South-West Africa? Do you know that the hon. Party which is now sitting opposite does not have one single person in South-West Africa who is an officially enrolled member of that Party. Not one single person! Now we know that the basis of democracy is that one should at least speak on behalf of those whom one represents. For that reason, if I were the Opposition, I would have said nothing about this Bill.

At one stage the hon. member for Bezuidenhout represented the Namib constituency here. That was many years ago. But he has at least been in South-West Africa. But I do not know whether the hon. member for North Rand has ever partaken of South-West African shepherd’s tree coffee. I do not know whether he has ever been there. I really do think that the hon. Opposition should in this respect proceed from the assumption that they do not represent anyone in South-West Africa, and that consequently they are not competent to speak on behalf of one single person in South-West Africa.

This is an important milestone of South-West Africa, because it is a fact that every civilized country in the world to-day has some form of identity document or other. For various reasons South-West Africa has been lagging behind for a long time, and the population of South-West Africa has been waiting for this legislation, which we are ultimately getting now, for many years. We have a particular problem in South-West Africa. If we think of the general political situation in Africa to-day, we find that the northern states of Africa there is political turmoil to-day and that inhabitants of those states are streaming in their tens and hundreds of thousands to the southern part of Africa where there is economic and political stability. But now we find that there is no control in South-West Africa. We do not know who are foreigners. Any person can enter the Territory at any time, and we will simply not know who he is. One would simply not be able to distinguish him from someone else, because he simply moves in there. Our borders are not being guarded, and he is simply there. We know that during the past three years 18 coup d’état have taken place in African States. Political chaos is prevailing there. Those people are being suppressed and that is why they come south to a country where there is peace and where there is political quiet and economic stability. For this reason we should already have made provision, a long time ago, for the population of South-West Africa to be given these identity documents in some way or other so that we would at least know who belongs in South-West Africa and who is a foreigner in South-West Africa.

There are other reasons as well why these identity documents for which provision is being made in this legislation, is going to be very useful to us. In recent years South-West Africa has grown tremendously. During the past eight years the population of Windhoek has increased twofold. Previously it was the case that everybody knew each other in South-West Africa, but to-day it is no longer so. When one arrives in Windhoek or one of the larger cities to-day, one sees that everybody is strange, for developments have taken place which we owe to this Government. There has been economic development of which we are proud. I want to invite the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to come along and see what South-West Africa looks like since he represented the Namib. For this reason this legislation offers an essential service which is being rendered. It happens so often that people of standing arrive at a place, and when they go to a bank or anywhere else for that matter, they are told: “We do not know you; prove that you are So-and-so”, and then they are unable to do so. One then has to scratch around and produce a radio licence or a driver’s licence, or something of that kind, to try to prove that you are So-and-so, and then you can still see that they accept it reluctantly. Now we too at last have the privilege of receiving a document which one can produce immediately and say: “This is my proof that I am So-and-so.” That is why this is a useful service which is being introduced here.

There is another reason as well. We in South-West Africa travel frequently. I could arrive in the constituency of the hon. member for Pinelands, who is smiling so broadly now, and be asked: "Where is your proof that you are So-and-so”. Then I would say: “In South-West Africa we do not have identity documents”. Then those people become suspicious. They think that it is merely someone from Pinelands who wants to hide his documents. That is why we welcome this legislation.

I do not want to go into details, because we will be able to thrash the details out in the Committee Stage, but there are other provisions in the Bill as well. There are other particulars, for example the question of an immunization certificate, which can be included in it. For example, immunization against poliomyelitis can be mentioned. Then there is also the blood group which can be indicated, if the person so desires. I think that it is very necessary, and I want to recommend it to every South-West African. In South-West Africa we have to cover tremendous distances. Sometimes one must drive 200 kilometers to the nearest town. That is why it is so necessary that one should have some certificate or other to indicate what one is allergic to. That is why the documents for which provision is being made in this legislation are so useful to the person who will be the proud owner. But these documents can also be utilized very beneficially for the future development of South-West Africa. That is why I want to say that on behalf of South-West Africa we welcomed this legislation. We welcome it wholeheartedly.

The hon. member for Middelland referred to me in a friendly fashion as the ex-member for Namib. Let me tell him that it is for me a matter of pride that of the members who came to Parliament from South-West Africa in 1950, I am the only one left. Therefore I do not mind in the least if he refers to me in that vein. The hon. member used a particularly strange argument. It struck me as odd that a man who used to be a Whip and who now occupies a higher position in this House, could adopt the attitude that we should not discuss a matter if it concerns a territory where we have no representation. But directly after that he proceeded to talk about the whole of Africa.

I spoke about Africa, and not on behalf of Africa.

Sir, we are not speaking on behalf of South-West Africa. We have a task, as co-administrators of this country, to investigate every measure in the interests of all our people. His argument is therefore one which we must reject immediately. Likewise, he must admit that the Opposition, even though it is not the U.P. as such, has obtained thousands of votes in South-West Africa. Even on that basis it can therefore be said that the Opposition has a right to discuss this matter. However, I do not want to argue about on whose behalf we are speaking. We are speaking in the best interests of the whole of South Africa, and of South-West Africa as well. That is how we judge a matter. If we believed that a matter was in the interests of South-West Africa, we would support the measure, but if we think that it is not in their interests, we cannot support it.

The hon. member said that people here in the Republic who notice that a South-West African does not have an identity card, are usually suspicious. I think the hon. member is wrong. They are really envious of the South Africans for still having that freedom, and of still being free of the bother of having a population card of this nature. In the days when I was an inhabitant of South-West Africa there was one thing which I always appreciated, and that was that South-West Africa enjoys certain measures of freedom which people in the Republic did not have. This gave the Territory a character of its own, and as a result of that it was a very pleasant territory to live in. There was a minimum of classification of society. Figuratively speaking one could say that one was still able to live there by bread alone, whereas here one has to live by bread as well as permits. With all the administrative integration which has taken place in South-West Africa in the past few years, things have changed, and one can perhaps understand how a measure such as this has now become inevitable. In the light of the delicate position in which the Territory finds itself internationally, it was very sensible of the hon. the Minister to introduce a separate Bill for South-West Africa. We appreciate his not having introduced a Bill linking South-West Africa to the system of the Republic, with its race classification. It even struck me that there was a difference between the Bill which the hon. the Minister issued a few months ago for general information, and this Bill which is at present before the House. If I am correct, clause 10 of the original Bill granted the State President the right to make regulations to change the form, the constitution and the content of the identity document. The word “content” has been removed from this Bill. It is just as well, because we would definitely have objected to it. In the previous debate we raised objections to the form which the document will take in the Republic. Because it is fundamentally the same, the same objections apply to the South-West document as well. We do not want to reiterate this again; we have thrashed the matter out well and that is why I just want to confirm here the arguments which the hon. member for Green Point has just set out.

In addition, the hon. the Minister did not give us an indication that any of the population groups in South-West Africa had been consulted in regard to the introduction of this measure. I think that in the case of South-West Africa this was perhaps more necessary than in the Republic. I therefore have no indication whatsoever that this arrangement is acceptable to the people of South-West Africa. The officials whom the hon. the Minister made available, to the Opposition as well, and I want to mention the names of Mr. Fourie and the Secretary Mr. Du Preez in particular, kept us informed on this matter. We were afforded the opportunity of asking questions and I should like to have it on record that the officials kept us informed with great efficiency and patience. But the hon. the Minister should at least realize that we cannot discuss matters of political policy with the officials. That is why the party had to determine its attitude on this matter on its own. I can however say to the hon. the Minister that no blame for the fact that the Opposition opposes this matter attaches to the officials who discussed it with us.

Although this Bill is separate from the race classification system we have in the Republic, there are in the identity document for South-West Africa nevertheless elements of population grouping. This the hon. the Minister did tell us. He said in his speech that the Government had decided not to make the classification system as it exists in the Republic applicable to South-West Africa. It is a pity the hon. the Minister did not tell us why. I should, in a subsequent speech of his. very much like to hear what the real reason is, or what the decisive factor was in making the Government decide to introduce a separate Bill for South-West Africa and not to link it to the classification of the Republic. I shall inform hon. members why I am putting this question. The significance I read into that is that if the existing system is not necessary for South-West Africa we shall subsequently have to hear from the hon. the Minister why it is in any way necessary for the Republic. After all, circumstances in the two territories are not so different. The hon. the Minister will have to accept that we regard the fact that he introduced a separate Bill for South-West Africa, an aspect which we welcome, as justification for the standpoints which we have been adopting against the system in the Republic over the years.

The hon. the Minister also said in his speech that the population group will be indicated in the number, but that it will be done by way of regulation. I hope I understood him correctly. If I understood the hon. the Minister correctly, he stated specifically in reply to a question by the hon. member for Green Point that the population group in South-West Africa will be indicated by the number. The hon. the Minister said that they will accept the indication given by the person himself. I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister what would happen if a person were to refuse to indicate under what group he fell, or what would happen if he were uncertain. Would there be any obligation on a person to indicate his population group if he did not want to do so? I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would furnish us with a reply to that, because we would like to know what procedure would be adopted in the central register to determine the correct code if the group is not indicated by the person himself. I would also be grateful if the hon. the Minister could tell us how many population groups there will be and what the various categories will be. We hope that if this system works better in South-West Africa than the one in the Republic it will be one occasion where the Republic has learnt something of value from South-West Africa which it is hoped could subsequently be applied here.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Green Point I just want to say that we will prescribe this identity number as indicated to us by the South-West African Administration. That also serves as a reply to the last question asked by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In South-West Africa there is an almost unique method of population classification. It is done administratively. If any doubts or objections are raised, the Administrator and a number of officials or Executive Committee members form a committee which decide on such matters. We will take over these particulars which South-West Africa supply us with. It is not going to be our function, seen from the point of view of population registration, to classify people there. I shall return in a moment to the question of classification, but I first want to reply in full to the questions of the hon. member for Green Point. The way in which identity numbers will be prescribed, is laid down in clause 3 (2) of the Bill, which reads as follows—

When I reply to the questions of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, I shall inform hon. members how the classification of population groups according to those numbers will be done. The phrase “the prescribed way” in the subsection means by way of regulation. In my introductory speech I said that those regulations would be laid upon the Table here so that hon. members would be afforded ample opportunity to criticize, accept or reject them. The House still has the last say on the way in which this regulation can be implemented. The hon. member also raised the question of a person who comes from South-West Africa and becomes subject here in the Republic to the provisions of clause 7 (5), i.e. the compulsory notification of change of address. If a person is no longer residing in South-West Africa, but has taken up permanent residence in the Republic, surely he must become subject to the laws of this country. He will then be subject to the provisions in terms of compulsory notification of change of address and I fear that in his case there can be no exception. The hon. member for Green Point again voiced a general objection to notification of change of address. I think we thrashed this matter out properly yesterday, and that it is inevitable. Without compulsory notification of change of address we simply cannot cause this population register to function satisfactorily.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants to know whether the different population groups in South-West Africa were consulted. I can inform the hon. member that the Administration of South-West Africa welcomes this measure. People there do not have identity cards, and that is why this measure is being welcomed. As far as South-West Africa is concerned, the Administration of South-West Africa is surely the responsible mouthpiece in this regard. The hon. member has now raised the question of classification. Firstly, this is not a classification measure; I said this in both my introductory speeches. This is a population registration measure which introduces an identity document system and we are simply taking over the classification, or in the case of South-West Africa, their population index. Whether or not it is desirable to have race classification in South-West Africa is a matter which could most probably be thrashed out on another occasion. Then the hon. member can simply use that as a peg on which to hang his attacks on our present classification system. But it is really not the occasion to-day to deal with this here.

The hon. member asked me a question in regard to the identity number and the persons who will be identified. I should be glad to furnish these particulars now. It is the intention, apart from the Native nations, to have the White, Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama population groups in the Territory designated by their respective identity numbers. The eleventh and twelfth figures of the number will indicate whether the person is a South African citizen and also to which population group he belongs. For the rest the number, as in the Republic, will be based on the person’s date of birth, citizenship and sex. For example the number of a male person who was born on 10th December, 1940, is a South African citizen and a member of the Rehoboth population group, will be the following: 401210/5001/07/1. The figures are interpreted as follows: “40” is the year of birth, “12” is the month and “10” the day of birth. The “5001” indicates the male sex. I told hon. members yesterday that a number above 5000 means “male” and below 5000 “female”. The “07” indicates the population group to which I referred here. The “0” indicates that he is a South African citizen. The Rehoboth population groups is then indicated by the figure “7”. The “1” at the end is the control number which is necessary in order to establish that the particulars are correct. That covers the questions which were raised.

I move—

As hon. members know, the administration of justice is a matter with regard to which the administration of the affairs of the Territory of South-West Africa is carried on, in terms of the provisions of the South-West Africa Affairs Act, 1969, (Act No. 25 of 1969), by the Minister of Justice. The Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944, is not applicable to the Territory and lower courts in the territory are established and function in terms of the Magistrates’ Courts Ordinance, 1963 (Ordinance No. 29 of 1963), of the Territory. With a view to uniformity and greater efficiency it is desirable to apply the legislation of the Republic in this connection to the Territory. This is being done by the Bill which is before this House now. The relevant clauses in this regard, are certain definitions in clause 1, and clauses 4, 6, 10, 20, 21 and 22.

Certain other amendments of the Magistrates’ Courts Act are, however, also necessary and I shall presently deal with them.

The clauses regarding applicability are self-explanatory and actually require no clarification. However, I may just mention certain aspects. The amendment in clause 4 will have the effect that a magistrate who is transferred from the Republic to South-West Africa, or vice versa, will have to take the oath of office only once instead of twice as the legal position is at present. A similar amendment also appears in the Supreme Court Amendment Bill, 1970, as far as Judges are concerned. The amendment contained in clause 6 is an adjustment which is being made as a corresponding provision does not appear in the legislation of the Territory. The proposed subsections (2) and (3) of the proposed section 115A—clause 21—are necessary because of certain references to the Criminal Procedure Act and the fact that our Interpretation Act is not applicable to the Territory.

As far as the clauses other than the clauses regarding applicability in the Territory are concerned, Sir, I mention in passing that the other amendments contained in clause 1 are of a purely technical nature.

As far as the amendment in paragraph (h), at present paragraph (e), in clause 2 is concerned, I want to mention that several so-called detached magistrates’ courts already exist at places which have been designated by the Minister of Justice in terms of that paragraph for the holding of courts for certain districts. Although the offices serve areas which are at present not statutorily defined, administrative limits have nevertheless been prescribed and the work which originate within those limits, is dealt with by the detached offices. Heavy expenditure is incurred in connection with the establishment of the offices with a view to serving communities more conveniently locally. This arrangement is, however, being hampered in one respect, i.e. by the fact that parties in civil actions cannot be obliged to institute proceedings at detached magistrates’ courts. The magistrate’s court of the district retains rival jurisdiction throughout. In practice the result is that plaintiffs in cases still institute proceedings in the main court of the district. In view of judicial staff, buildings and facilities which have to be made available at the detached offices in each case, the efficient handling of judicial work in this connection in the districts concerned is being restricted.

It appears that problems which are being experienced can be overcome, without disturbing the existing set up of districts and detached offices, by determining areas of jurisdiction for detached offices which, for all purposes, will still form part of the district concerned, but which will be regarded as separate entities for the purposes of jurisdiction of the courts concerned. That is being done by paragraph (h) of clause 2 and clause 9 of the Bill.

As far as clause 5 is concerned, section 9bis (2) of the Act provides how the Regional Divisions Appointments Advisory Board is to be constituted. That provision was inserted when there was only one Deputy Secretary of Justice. At present there is more than one officer holding this rank, and consequently it is not necessary any longer to appoint undersecretaries to the Board. In paragraphs (b) and (d) in this clause provision is therefore being made for the new situation. The provision in paragraph (c) in that clause, (that the head of the Training Section of the Department of Justice will also be a member of the Board) is necessary because that officer is directly concerned in the practical training given to regional magistrates. In paragraph (d) of clause 5, as in the case of chief magistrates and deputy secretaries, it is being provided that someone holding the rank instead of the office of Attorney-General may be appointed as a member of the Board.

The amendments in clauses 7 and 8 are being effected as the court rules under the old 1917 Act have ceased to exist a long time ago.

The amendment in clause 12 gives effect to the court’s decision in Woudstra v. Jekison, 1968 (1) 453 (T), whereby the word “payment” was given a wide meaning.

The amendments in clauses 14 and 15 arise from an amendment to the magistrate’s court rules whereby the civil record book was abolished.

No provision exists in the Act for the disposal of goods attached by the messenger of the court, of which the owner cannot be traced after the attachment has been withdrawn. In view of the fact that the Act and the court rules make provision for a judicial sale only, it is necessary for provision to be made for this situation as well. It appears to be more appropriate to do this by way of amending the Act itself rather than the court rules. This matter is being regulated by clause 16.

In terms of the provisions of section 93bis of the Act, a judicial official is required, if it appears that the trial may more properly be conducted before the court of a regional division, or that the imposition of certain sentences would have been competent if the accused had been convicted by the court of a regional division, or when the prosecutor so requests, to stop the trial or to set aside his finding and refer the case to the court of a regional division. In terms of section 186 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act a judicial officer other than the one who convicted the accused, may impose a sentence in the absence of the latter. Section 93bis does not make provision for such cases, with the result that a judicial officer who acts in the absence of another, is not bound by that. In order to eliminate this anomaly, a suitable amendment is being effected by clause 18.

The amendment in clause 19 is being effected so as to enable the courts to impose more realistic sentences in connection with offences relating to the execution of judgments.

With that, Sir, I think I have clarified the main aspects.

Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition has no objection to this Bill being read a Second Time. It is generally an amending Bill. If it has any particular principle, then that principle is probably to make the Magistrates’ Courts Act of 1944 applicable to South-West Africa in view of the changes, particularly administratively, which this House deemed necessary recently to bring about in respect of South-West Africa. It is, therefore, appropriate that also the Magistrates’ Courts Act of 1944 now be made applicable to that Territory.

For the rest, as I have said, this Bill is more of an amending Bill and as such more of a Committee Stage Bill. It may be that when we come to that stage we on this side of the House may have something to say in regard to some of its provisions. At this stage, however, we have no objection to its Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Although the Bill appears to be long, it actually contains only one fundamental principle i.e. the application thereof to the Territory of South-West Africa. As hon. members know, the administration of the affairs of the Territory of South-West Africa with regard to estates of deceased persons is one of the matters which, in terms of section 19 of the South-West Africa Affairs Act, 1969, rests with the Minister of Justice.

In the Territory the estates of deceased persons are at present still administered according to the provisions of the Administration of Estates Act, 1913, as applied to the Territory by the Better Administration of Justice Proclamation, 1921 (Proclamation No. 52 of 1921), of the Territory of South-West Africa. It is desirable that uniform legislation in connection with the administration of estates should apply in the Republic and the Territory, as was the case before the Administration of Estates Act of 1965 came into operation in the Republic.

The various clauses of the Bill are self-explanatory and contain the necessary adjustments for making the Act applicable in the Territory. However, I just want to mention a few aspects which may possibly not be clear from the Bill itself. The amendment in clause 5 is being effected because the Trust Moneys Protection Act, 1934, is not applicable in the Territory. As far as clause 10 is concerned, the Act will not be applicable to the estates of persons who are members of the Rehoboth community. The estates of those persons are administered in terms of Proclamation No. 36 of 1941 of the Territory.

It will be noted in the Schedule that the whole of the Administration of Estates Act, 1913, as applied to the Territory, is being repealed, except in so far as section 115bis of that Act is concerned. A corresponding provision does not appear in the Administration of Estates Act, 1965, but does appear in section 24 of the General Law Amendment Act, 1952 (Act No. 32 of 1952), of the Republic. This section reads as follows—

When the Administration of Estates Act which applies to the Territory is repealed, it is therefore essential to retain section 115bis until such time as the provisions of section 24 of the General Law Amendment Act of 1952 are applied to the Territory.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is similar in effect to the previous Bill, in that it makes the Administration of Estates Act of 1965 applicable to South-West Africa. What I said earlier in regard to the Magistrates’ Courts Amendment Bill applies equally to this measure. The Official Opposition has no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill either.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The provisions of this Bill actually speak for themselves and consequently I need not say much about them. As hon. members know, the administration of justice, including matters relating to commissioners of oaths, is included among the matters in regard to which the administration of the affairs of the Territory of South-West Africa is dealt with by a Minister of the Republic in terms of the provisions of the South-West Africa Affairs Act, 1969. In the case of the administration of justice the Minister concerned is of course the Minister of Justice. The appointment, powers and duties of commissioners of oaths in the Territory of South-West Africa are still regulated under the Commissioners of Oaths Proclamation, 1928. In this regard I may just mention that that proclamation makes no provision for the appointment of justices of the peace. In terms of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance of the Territory only commissioned police officers are justices of the peace for the purposes of that ordinance.

In the Bill now before the House provision is made for the amendment of the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act, 1963, so as to apply that Act to the Territory of South-West Africa. This is being done because it is the objective, for purposes of uniformity and greater efficiency, to apply the various Acts relating to the administration of justice, of which this Act is only one, to the Territory. Although the Commissioners of Oaths Proclamation of 1928 of the Territory makes no provision for the appointment of justices of the peace, the application of the Republic legislation in the Territory in this connection will place persons holding offices in the Territory, as mentioned in the first schedule to the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act, on an equal basis with their counterparts in the Republic. In addition, it will be possible that, as in the Republic, justices of the peace will be able to render valuable services in connection with the administration of justice, especially in remote areas in the Territory.

Clauses 1 and 2 contain the key provisions of the Bill. The first schedule to the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act, 1963, contains a list of offices the holders of which are justices of the peace ex officio. In that list the offices of, inter alia, Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner, Bantu Affairs Commissioner, etc., are mentioned. Legislation applicable in South-West Africa, however, makes no provision for such offices, but does make provision for those of Chief Native Commissioner, Assistant Chief Native Commissioner, etc. Consequently it is necessary to make an adjustment in this connection, and this is being done in clause 3 of the Bill.

Clause 4 of the Bill provides for the repeal of the existing laws of the Territory and contains transitional provisions.

Clause 5 provides for the commencement of the amending Act on a date to be fixed by proclamation, in order to afford an opportunity for the adjustment of notices and regulations issued in terms of the Act of the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, this is another Bill to make one of the Acts of the Republic applicable to South-West Africa, namely the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act, 1963. For the reasons that I have mentioned previously in respect of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, we on this side of the House have no objection to this Second Reading either. *

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their kind reception of these three measures.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The various clauses in the Bill have been fully explained in a memorandum which has been tabled. I therefore do not consider it necessary to explain each clause in detail again, and I shall therefore only clarify certain aspects further. In the first place, there is the proposed changes in respect of the Bantu Affairs Commission as embodied in clauses 1, 4 and 5. The hon. the Minister and I myself want to involve the Commission more actively in respect of those general matters entrusted to it in terms of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Bantu Affairs Act, 1959, i.e. the consideration of any matter concerning the general management of the administration of Bantu affairs and the submission of recommendations in that connection, apart from, of course, the specific matters which the commission must consider or on which recommendations must be made in terms of some or other statutory provision, for example subsection (2) of section 9 of the Bantu Education Act, 1953, which requires the commission first to institute an inquiry before the registration of a school may be withdrawn.

The fact that the Commission functions under the chairmanship of the Minister concerned —even if only technically, as there is a deputy chairman—is, after all, not altogether reconcilable with the idea of a body which must advise the Minister independently of that Minister. Therefore I propose that the Minister should no longer be the chairman, as does the Minister himself. As a result of the rearrangement of relationships with South-West Africa it was agreed that the Administrator of South-West Africa would no longer be a member of the Commission, although the Commission’s duties will also include the native peoples in that Territory.

I should also like to mention further considerations concerning the Commission. The activities of the Department cover a very wide field and include many different and specialized matters, in respect of which members of the Commission could hardly be expected to have specialized knowledge, while it is, of course, unpractical to alter the composition of the Commission in such a way that there are at least one or perhaps two members who have special knowledge of such matters. Therefore it is necessary that the Commission should have the right to call in the assistance of experts when circumstances require it, and provision is now being made here for that.

Furthermore, as a result of the diversity of activities it is unpractical for the full Commission to meet in order to consider the details of various specialized matters coming before it. For this reason it is necessary to provide that it may act by way of committees which can undertake preliminary investigations and research and even call in experts to serve on the committees, after which a report is made to the full Commission. It is, of course, standard practice in many institutions to act in this way by means of committees. The appointment or designation of persons who are not members of the Commission, to assist it or to serve on committees of the Commission, and the appointment of the committees, will then be regulated in terms of the proposals in clause 5, by way of regulations. I also just want to point out to hon. members that the persons who, as I have explained, will assist the Commission or serve on the committees, will, of course, not be members of the Commission and will therefore only be compensated for their services and expenses which they must of necessity incur in connection with these services.

The second aspect I want to mention concerns the provision in regard to the representatives of self-governing territories and territorial authorities, as well as the representatives of chiefs in urban Bantu councils. We want to place the representatives of the Bantu homeland authorities in the White areas on a better footing. From negotiations with the various authorities and the experience already gained, it is clear that proper representation can only take place if one person is primarily responsible to the homeland authority and if he is then assisted by assistants and councils determined according to the needs and the number of members of the relevant national unit in any particular area. The representatives will have to play a continually increasing role in looking after the interests of their compatriots in respect of the homeland authorities, and there should therefore be close liaison with these compatriots, which can best be achieved on the basis proposed in clauses 2 and 3. This will also create a more efficient channel for members of a national unit in a White area to link up with the homeland authority, and for this reason it is now also desirable to review the position of the representatives of chiefs on urban Bantu councils, as explained in the memorandum.

Mr. Speaker, we support this Bill, not because it necessarily supports our policy in all its provisions, but because it does so in one important aspect and is further proof of the Government’s blunderings and of its embarrassment for not heeding United Party advice from time to time. With regard to the first clause I want to say that we do not object to the proposed amendment to the effect that the Bantu Affairs Commission will not have to be consulted in certain issues. We do not object to this because we fear that this Bantu Affairs Commission is merely becoming a rubber stamp. Gone are the old days when the members of this commission were appointed solely for their knowledge of Bantu affairs, Bantu life, Bantu habits and customs. There is obviously no object in consulting with the Bantu Affairs Commission anymore. Therefore, we do not blame the hon. the Minister for wanting to amend the Act so as to absolve him from that obligation. He cannot entrust this commission with certain work. I think that is all to the good. The less he gives this commission to do, the better. We would like to see a strong commission, as it was. We fear that with the commission as it is now, we see no reason to object to the Minister depriving it of certain of its authority. Clause 2 limits the members of chiefs representatives and clause 3 is consequential. We are opposed to the appointments of these ambassadors, as we call them. We also opposed this in the original Act. However, we do not object to this amendment which the hon. the Minister now envisages if it will mean better administration. As I say, this does not fit in with our system. If the Government feels it is necessary to make this amendment, we will not stop them. Clauses 4 and 5 reconstitute the Bantu Affairs Commission. Again we do not object. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us why it is not considered advisable to specify in this Bill that one of the members of the commission shall be appointed to represent the interests of South-West Africa? The Administrator of South-West Africa used to be an ex-officio member of the commission. However, that provision has been deleted and there is an additional member being appointed. There may be some reason why this Bill does not provide especially for representation from South-West Africa. I would be glad if the Minister would deal with that in his reply.

I should also like to refer to the members of the urban councils, those dealt with in clauses 8, 9 and 10. Hon. members will remember that we were opposed to the selection of members of those councils. I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister for proposing this amendment. I want to congratulate him and his department that they have not waited for 20 or 40 years as some departments have done before taking over the policy of the United Party. They have only waited nine years in this instance. The hon. the Deputy Minister was not a Deputy Minister when the original Act was passed and I do not know whether he was even in the House then. It is just as well for the hon. the Minister that he is not here to-day, because on that occasion he spoke as the Deputy Minister. It will be remembered by the House that we supported the Urban Bantu Councils Act, or Bill as it was then, for one reason and that is because it carried out principles of our policy in giving the urban Bantu a council for which they could elect members themselves. There were selected councillors and elected councillors on this body, and we were opposed to the selection of councillors. The selected councillors were, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said just now, representatives of the chiefs. The Minister is now proposing to delete this provision for selected councillors. When the present Minister, who was then Deputy Minister, refused to accept an amendment at the time …

Order! Is it necessary to cover all that ground and delve into the past?

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to say why we are supporting this Bill. Surely, I am entitled to motivate my reasons. I want to ask the Minister to consider whether he should in fact proceed with this Bill in its present form? We will support it, but is it wise from the Government’s point of view? That is what I want to ask. When the present Minister was a Deputy Minister he said the following when he refused to accept an amendment to delete the selected members from the Bill and I quote from his Hansard in 1961 (column 9152):

I am merely pointing out that this seems to be contrary to the Government’s policy and in accordance with the United Party policy. If the Government is in fact changing its policy, I would be glad if the hon. the Minister could tell us about it. For these reasons, I shall support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is probably a very long time since we last had a Bill in connection with Bantu affairs in this House which went through unopposed. We are very grateful that this is so on this occasion. It affords me very great pleasure that this is so.

The hon. member asked why we did not make provision for the representation of the Territory of South-West Africa on this commission. The reply is that the commission as a whole is being granted those powers in respect of the Native population in South-West Africa. It is therefore not necessary to retain that representation. In the second place, it has never been the principle to appoint the representatives on the Bantu Affairs Commission on a regional basis. That is therefore the reply to that, and I think the hon. member accepts that it is quite correct to do what we are now doing here.

The hon. member also said that we had taken over the United Party’s policy in respect of the urban Bantu councils as well as in respect of the removal of the chiefs’ representatives as selected members on the urban Bantu councils. This is, of course, not true at all. What is true, and I hope the hon. the Opposition will take proper note of what I am going to say now, is that the policy of multi-national development has made such good progress and has been implemented so brilliantly under the National Party regime that we can now establish a much better form here, i.e. a properly representative council of the people, which can function alongside the urban Bantu councils in the white area. Previously, when the Minister did, in fact, say what the hon. member read out to us, it was necessary to retain the liaison with the Bantu people by means of the chiefs’ representative as a selected member on the urban Bantu council. If there has ever been an example of the progress made by the National Party’s policy, and not of a take-over of United Party policy, hon. members have it here in this Bill, with reference to the words the hon. member quoted.

And he supports it!

We do not want to make politics out of this, but the hon. member is now supporting the excellent progress that has been made in connection with the policy of multi-national development. Lastly, I want to say that I am only a young member here and therefore cannot speak of 1936 and the years before that. However, I do not think I am wrong in saying that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development has never in its history had a better Bantu Affairs Commission than at the present moment. The Bantu Affairs Commission is anything but a rubber stamp; on the contrary, let me tell the House that the Bantu Affairs Commission is doing key work in this country, and I want to express my appreciation to the members of the Bantu Affairs Commission for that.

I want to conclude by saying that this Bill, and I am glad the hon. the Opposition is supporting it, is creating the necessary machinery to make this Bantu Affairs Commission a very important instrument in the still more rapid implementation of the policy of multinational development. I particularly want to emphasize that the system of committees which will now be introduced by regulation, will in future make it possible to make use of the services of experts, particularly economists and agriculturists, as well as others for the purposes of the Bantu Affairs Commission, particularly for the rapid implementation of economic development and for the assistance which can be rendered in that way for the development of the Bantu homelands. If there is any semblance of truth in the allegation that the Bantu Affairs Commission is merely a rubber stamp, we are moving away from that to a position where the Bantu Affairs Commission is becoming a very strong instrument in the implementation of the policy of multi-national development.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During the 1969 session the measure before the House was referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and recommendation, and all persons concerned in the matter were afforded every opportunity of giving evidence. According to the report presented by the Select Committee, there was a division in regard to certain fundamental aspects of the Bill as read a First Time. An amended Bill, retaining those fundamental matters on which there was a difference of opinion, was reported. I should like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Chairman and members of the Select Committee for the thorough manner in which they acquitted themselves of their task.

During the recess the President-in-Chief and office bearers of the Central Council of the Institute of South African Architects approached me with a view to ascertaining whether I would be prepared to allow further talks to be held with the Department of Public Works in regard to the Architects’ Bill, as reported by the Select Committee. I intimated my willingness accordingly, subject to the condition that no amendments of a fundamental nature would be considered, i.e.—

1. (i) appointments to the Council shall be made by the Minister on the basis of nominations submitted by the architects’ institutes;
2. (ii) no architects’ institute or institutes shall be entrenched to the exclusion of others;
3. (iii) no existing provincial institute shall be recognized as an architects’ institute;
4. (iv) regulations shall be made by the Minister and not by the proposed council; and
5. (v) all actions which have the force of law, shall vest in the Minister.

These principles were accepted by the representatives of the Institute, and in the course of a series of meetings, consultations were held and agreement was reached on a number of amendments which do not encroach upon the said principles. On the strength of this the Institute indicated in writing that The Bill before the House at the moment had its full support.

I think it would be interesting to give a survey of this profession over the years. For about 42 years the architects’ and quantity surveyors’ professions have been regulated by the Architects and Quantity Surveyors (Private) Act, 1927 (Act No. 18 of 1927), and the regulations made under this Act. Under that Act full powers in regard to registration, the determination of registration and annual fees as well as professional fees, disciplinary measures, training, etc., shall vest in the hands of the Institute of South African Architects and the Chapter of Quantity Surveyors, with the Central Council of the Institute as the over-all controlling body.

As from 1st April, 1967, the Minister of Public Works has been entrusted with the duties of the Minister in terms of this Act. Just after the administration of the Act had been taken over, it became obvious to the Department of Public Works that the legislation had not kept pace with the tremendous change that had taken place in the building trade and the profession since the commencement of the Act. The Act in itself is not only outmoded, inadequate and in many respects archaic, but there are also doubts about the validity of several regulations. In fact, the legal advisers confirmed that one of the most important regulations, i.e. the one on training, is ultra vires the Act. Apart from specific aspects or principles of the Act to which there are objections, its philosophy, seen as a whole, is basically wrong in this respect, i.e. that it invests the Institute, whose primary function is the promotion of the interests of the architects’ profession and its study and science, with all the powers which are normally vested in statutory bodies such as those for medical men, accountants and engineers who, apart from ordering the affairs of the profession itself, have to look after the interests of the public.

During the first half of 1967 the Central Council of the Institute of S.A. Architects put forward certain proposals for the amendment of the Act. However, these contributions were not to make nay contribution whatever to giving the Act any semblance of being modern or of rectifying its inadequancy. If the Institutes proposals were adopted, certain considerations would also have come to the fore in regard to the procedure to be followed in handling a measure seeking to amend a private Act. Talks were held with the interested parties, and they also argued that the existing Act did not invest the Institute of S.A. Architects and the Chapter of Quantity Surveyors with adequate powers for protecting themselves and their members. In the meantime the quantity surveyors’ profession, which had by this time reached full matiruty, had also started knocking loudly on the door, asking for their independence.

In the light of all these considerations the Department of Public Works drafted legislation which contemplates the substitution of the existing Act and is aimed at settling the whole position in the interests of the effective protection of and control over both professions. For reasons with which I shall deal briefly when a similar measure, the legislation relating to quantity surveyors, will be presented to this House in a moment, it was obvious that the time for a parting of the ways had arrived for the professions concerned.

Separate draft bills were accordingly prepared. Both bills were drafted on the lines of the Professional Engineers Act (Act No. 81 of 1968), which has proved to be an unqualified success so far. After talks had been held with the interested parties on the principles contained in these measures and after I had also had an interview with a deputation from the Institute of S.A. Architects on a certain occasion, these measures were advertised in the Government Gazette for general information prior to being introduced in this House.

The Bill was not acceptable to the Institute, and its standpoint throughout was that the present Act, except for those amendments it had proposed, was functioning quite satisfactorily as far as the Institute was concerned. As regard some of the principles that were to be incorporated in the new measure, the Institute waived fundamental differences of minor importance, and took a firm stand on two aspects on which I was not prepared to give way, i.e. the proposed entrenchment of the provincial institutes in the draft bill and, secondly, the proposal that the making of regulations be left in the hands of the council that was to be established. The entrenchment of the provincial institutes has extensive implications, such as the fragmentation of the profession and the limitation of the possibilities of statutory recognition being gained later on by additional architects’ associations which may be established. Furthermore, it would create an incongruous position in that in the absence of a co-ordinating body, a statutory body, i.e. the S.A. Council of Architects, would in effect be invested with powers for controlling these provincial institutes, which will have corporative status. As regards the making of regulations by a person or body other than the Minister, the principle in regard to the authority of Parliament and its right to call the Minister concerned to account, is so clear that I am not going to say any more about it.

However, as I have already stated, these differences were settled during the recess, and the Bill which is before the House at the moment has the support of the organized architects’ profession.

Next I come to the principles contained in the Act. and I shall start by dealing with the constitution of the council. The Bill before the House seeks to establish a S.A. Council for Architects, which will be a statutory, independent body similar to those of other professions where controlling bodies were established by way of appropriate legislation. The council will consist of 17 members to be appointed by the Minister. Twelve of them will represent the profession and will be nominated by the existing architects’ institutes or the architects’ institute or institutes to be established. Two members will represent those universities in the Republic where tuition is offered in architecture. From the ranks of the architects in the service of the State the Minister will select one person for appointment to the council, whereas provision is also being made for the nomination of two additional members by virtue of their knowledge of public affairs and the economic requirements of the country; one of these members is to be selected by reason of his knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of architecture.

As the educational aspect and standards of training are of cardinal importance, an Education Advisory committee is being established as well. The Minister will appoint the members of this committee, as he does in the case of the council. The committee will be constituted of a representative of each university which has a faculty of architecture, and these persons are to he professors or lecturers in architecture and are to be nominated by the various senates. Two persons are to be nominated by my colleague the Minister of National Education. There will, in addition, be appointed to the committee a number of members, nominated by the architects’ institutes, equal in number to the difference in number between those nominated by the universities and those nominated by my colleague.

Apart from the customary provision for regulating its own domestic affairs, the council will also be expected to advise the Minister on—

1. (a) the making of regulations for giving effect to the Act, regulations in which, inter alia, the examination recognized for the purposes of registration as an architect, will be prescribed;
2. (b) the requirements with which an association of architects is to comply in order to qualify for recognition;
3. (c) the minimum fees which are to be chargeable by an architect for his professional services; and
4. (d) the kinds of work that are to be performed by architects alone.

What is of importance to the profession, is that the exceptionally important registration function will be carried out by the council. The council will also have to keep a watchful eye on the architects’ profession, and for this purpose it will be invested with the necessary powers for taking disciplinary steps in cases of improper conduct on the part of architects. Similarly, provision is also being made for the council to take any such steps as it may consider expedient for the protection of the public in their transactions with members of this profession.

The income of the council will for the most part be derived from registration and annual fees. However, it is being provided that, should this be necessitated by the functions of the council, moneys may be advanced to the council from public funds, in consultation with the Minister of Finance. The council will control its own funds. Furthermore, the council will annually submit to me a report on its activities and finances, copies of which will be laid upon the Table of this House.

Registration as an architect will be subject to the requirements that the applicant—

1. (a) shall not be less than 21 years of age and shall ordinarily be resident in the Republic;
2. (b) shall have passed the prescribed examination or any examination recognized by the council;
3. (c) shall for a period of at least three years have performed work of a prescribed kind under the supervision and control of an architect, or architectural work of sufficient variety and of a satisfactory nature;
4. (d) shall, subject to certain exemptions, be a member of an architects’ institute; and
5. (e) shall not be subject to certain disqualifications, such as improper conduct, previous offences, being of unsound mind, insolvency, etc.

Any person who immediately prior to the commencement of this measure was registered as an architect in terms of the existing Act as well as the Ordinance which applies in South-West Africa shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements for registration. However, applications in this regard must be made within six months after the commencement of the Act or within such period as the council may allow in a specific case.

In order to encourage qualified persons living beyond our borders to come to this country and to make provision for those who may settle here on a temporary basis so as to undertake major projects, provision is being made for temporary registration for periods which may not exceed 12 months and which may be extended.

Strong pleas were made to the Select Committee for the protection of the established rights of those persons who, although they are not in possession of the prescribed academic qualifications and have therefore not been able to register as architects under Act No. 18 of 1927, have over the years gained so much practical experience in architectural work that they are making a decent living out of it. In fact, in the ranks of the architects themselves the admission was made that such persons were making a valuable contribution and were, in certain respects, rendering an indispensable service in the building trade. Accordingly the Select Committee inserted a new section 19 (5) (b), which provides as follows—

Any person who—

1. (a) is not less than 50 years of age and is ordinarily resident in the Republic; and
2. (b) at the date of commencement of this Act, was engaged in the performance of work of an architectural nature which in the opinion of the council is of sufficient variety and of a satisfactory nature and standard, and had been so engaged during a period of not less than 25 years prior to that date; and
3. (c) satisfies the council that he has an adequate knowledge of the legal principles which, in the opinion of the council, are fundamental to the profession of architecture and an adequate knowledge of the application of such principles,

shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements laid down in regard to prescribed or recognized qualifications.

To ensure that architects who recently completed their studies, gain the necessary practical experience to round off their training properly, the Bill lays down that they are to register as architects in training. For a period to be determined by regulation they will have to work under the control and supervision of an architect before they can be registered as such. Therefore, full registration as an architect is based on the philosophy that such a person has not only been trained properly in the theory of his profession, but also that he is well-equipped as regards the practical side of his work.

The Bill contains a prohibition against any person who has not been registered as an architect and who pretends to be one or performs for gain any kind of work reserved for architects, except in cases where specific exemption has been granted under the Act or the regulations. Penal sanctions are being laid down for offences of this nature.

Furthermore, the Bill seeks to make regulations as to matters such as the allowances payable to members, keeping a register of architects, prescriptions in regard to improper conduct and the procedure to be followed in inquiries, as well as rules of conduct for the profession. Irreproachability in the conduct of an architect is a prerequisite for the proper development of this profession. Preserving the integrity and enhancing the status and prestige of architects as a professional group, will therefore be basic to these rules of conduct.

As regards existing architects’ institutes: In recognition of the significant contribution which the Institute of South African architects has made under the existing Act in the development of the architects’ profession and architecture as such, this Bill provides that—

1. (a) at the commencement of the measure now under discussion, that institute shall be deemed to be a recognized architects’ institute, provided that it shall within three years comply with any requirements prescribed by regulation;
2. (b) it shall be a body corporate, a provision which will as a matter of fact be applicable to every association of architects which receives statutory recognition; and
3. (c) the existing provincial institutes, which are constituent bodies of the Institute of S.A. Architects, shall be corporate as long as they so remain constituent bodies, but that no such provincial institute shall be recognized as an association of architects.

Then there is the repeal of laws. The repeal of the Architects and Quantity Surveyors (Private) Act, 1927 (Act No. 18 of 1927) and the Architects Ordinance, 1952 (No. 38 of 1952) (South-West Africa) is being envisaged, subject to certain provisos.

The establishment of a S.A. Council for Architects will definitely be an important step forward in the interests of the proper ordering of the profession, the protection of both the architect and his client and the enhancement of the status of architects, as well as the improvement of their standards of training. All these things must necessarily benefit the country as a whole. Moreover, they should undoubtedly be instrumental in making the profession as such more attractive and in attracting more and more young men to this profession.

Mr. Speaker, this measure is an important one for the South African architects. It establishes a new council for the architects and makes provision for incidental matters arising from that. I think it is a happy position to-day that the hon. the Minister has been able to announce to this House that the architects are now happy with this measure and look forward to working under this Act for the improvement of their profession and in the public interest. I say this because there was, at the stage when the Select Committee completed its deliberations, quite a lot of concern in the minds of architects over certain aspects. It is gratifying—and I am sure that the architects themselves are gratified—that the hon. the Minister and the Department were prepared to continue discussions after the Select Committee had made its recommendations, which discussions, as I said a moment ago, were concluded to the satisfaction of all parties.

I do not wish to say much in regard to the principles of this Bill. They have been dealt with in detail by the hon. the Minister and I have nothing to add to what he has said.

There is one matter of principle, however, which at the second reading stage of the debate I should like to deal with, and that is a matter of principle on which the Select Committee was unable to find a solution, despite very considerable discussion and despite the investigation of a number of possible alternatives. I refer here to the position of architectural draughtsmen.

The hon. the Minister will be aware of the second report of the Select Committee which, on this aspect was a unanimous report. Certain other aspects of the decision of the Select Committee were not unanimous, but in respect of this second report this decision was unanimous, and it was brought about in this form simply because, as I said a moment ago, the Select Committee found it impossible to make provision for the draughtsmen who at present carry out certain architectural work but are not qualified in terms of the Act to continue to do it. The Institute of Draughtsmen made representations before the Select Committee and asked that first of all they should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. They asked that draughtsmen, particularly members of the S.A. Institute of Draughtsmen, and the work performed by them should be specifically excluded from the restrictive provisions of this Bill as well as the following Bill on the Order Paper dealing with quantity surveyors. The unanimous decision of the Select Committee was that this request could not be acceded to because to a large extent, if it were acceded to, it would defeat some of the main objects of this Bill, which were to constitute architects and the architectural profession under one body, to protect these persons within an institute and at the same time to protect the public. It would have been impossible to achieve these objects, particularly the protection of the public, if they were excluded entirely from the provisions of this Bill, because otherwise they would not have been subject to any form of control whatsoever as they are not at present governed under any particular statute. The Committee considered some ways in which they could be protected and to some extent the work they are doing, recognized. The architects themselves conceded that in the main the work which architectural draughtsmen do is very valuable and in particular—I think this is the important aspect of the matter—the architects stated that it would not be possible for them to carry out all the work now being done by draughtsmen, even if they were required to do so by the Act. But at the same time they felt that some form of control had to be exercised over these persons. But I emphasize that it was not the attitude of the architects that they should take over all this work. They said specifically that they would not be able to handle it. It was thought that it might be possible to afford them some protection by placing an upper limit on the value of the work they would be allowed to perform and the suggestion was canvassed that that limit should be R20,000. The idea was that within that limit they would then be able to do any form of architectural work they were presently doing. However, the draughtsmen themselves were not in favour of the suggestion. In all the circumstances it would be undesirable to introduce a provision of this sort because the evidence before the Select Committee was to the effect that much of the work to-day being done by draughtsmen exceeded R20,000 in value. For example, we had evidence that some of these draughtsmen were employed by oil companies to do the design of and drawings for alterations to filling stations and in some cases even to do the drawings for new filling stations. That was thought to be perfectly in order because this was not complicated work and draughtsmen were competent to do it. The value of this type of work was stated to be between R40,000 and R50,000. If, therefore, we had agreed on a limit of R20,000, this work would have been excluded for them. Alternatively it was suggested that some provision should be made to specify the work draughtsmen ought to be allowed to do. This suggestion, too, gave the Select Committee problems and after considering the matter came to the conclusion that it was not possible to accede to this either. In a supplementary memorandum the draughtsmen stated that they ought to be allowed to do the following (vide p. 52. S.C. 6— 1969) —

These values were to be the upper limit and were to be subject to periodic examination and reappraisal. But the Select Committee decided that it could not accede to this either. Amongst other reasons, there was the fact that the representatives of the …

Order! I hope the hon. member will not go too deeply into this because it has not been provided for in the Bill.

I shall not be much longer over this, Mr. Speaker. The reason why I have to go into some details is that this is a matter which exercised much of the Select Committee’s attention. It is appropriate to deal with it here as matter of principle arising as it does from clause 7 (3) (c) of the Bill requiring the Minister “to … prescribe the kinds of work in connection with projects and undertakings or services of an architectural nature which shall be reserved for architects”. It was in the light of this that the draughtsmen were worried that they could be deprived of a means of livelihood if the work allocated to architects made it impossible for draughtsmen to carry on.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to state the matter and I hope he will not go into very much more detail.

I shall not go into more detail than is necessary to explain to the House the problem involved and to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. The problem in connection with accepting the alternative suggestion of the draughtsmen was twofold. In evidence (See p. 45—S.C. 6—’69) the draughtsmen themselves conceded that many of their own members were probably not qualified to initiate buildings such as blocks of flats of R60.000 to R100,000 from beginning to end. Furthermore, the estimate was that there were about 20,000 draughtsmen practising in South Africa to-day and that only 500 of these were members of the Institute of Draughtsmen. The bulk of them therefore, i.e. 19,500, were neither members of the Institute of Draughtsmen, nor subject to any form of control whatsoever. Consequently some form of control is necessary. At the same time, however, the Select Committee felt that some provision should be made so that these draughtsmen were not deprived of their livelihood because, as I have already pointed out, the evidence was that they performed a valuable service, a service which the architects, through shortage of numbers, would be unable to take over. Hence, the Select Committee in its Second Report recommended that in applying clause 7 (3) (c) “the position of persons presently practising as draughtsmen must be taken into account, and care taken to ensure that such persons are not deprived of their livelihood as a result of the new legislation, provided that the interests and safety of the public are accorded priority”. When he replies to the debate, or when we deal with clause 7 (3) (c) in the Committee Stage, I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate whether or not he is prepared to accept this recommendation of the Select Committee and whether he is prepared to go one step further. When he has before him the recommendations of the architects in regard to the types of work they like to be preserved for them, would he then consult the draughtsmen before finally promulgating the necessary regulations? If he is prepared to do that, it would allay much of the fears of the draughtsmen. The Minister would therefore be rendering a service to this profession if he makes that clear in this debate.

Have you an amendment in mind or do you agree with me that this can be done administratively?

As a matter of fact, the Select Committee had great difficulty in framing a provision which could be included in the Bill and itself felt that this could better be achieved administratively. Therefore I agree with the hon. the Minister; only he should state in this House that he accepts that recommendation of the Select Committee and that he will act accordingly.

Then there is the broader aspect of this which was also referred to by the Select Committee in its Second Report. This concerns the whole future of draughtsmen. The Select Committee had this to say—

I do suggest that this is a real need and I would suggest that some measure should be introduced in the future which would bring the 20,0 odd draughtsmen under some form of institute. It would probably be unwise to place them under a separate institute. This is subject to debate, but it is my personal view that it would possibly be better if they were recognized officially as a wing, as it were, of the architectural profession. In other words, they should be brought in under this Bill which is before the House by amendments at a later stage, when the matter has been properly investigated. This can, however, only be done when proper official diploma courses have been established at technical colleges so that persons who wish to practise as draughtsmen in future can be trained, can obtain a diploma and can be properly recognized.

They must not charge the public higher fees.

The question of fees is important when dealing with the draughtsmen. It was an important point they raised in justifying their existence. In many cases they are able to charge lower fees to the public than architects. This point was conceded by the architects. The fact that the draughtsmen in many cases perform a vital service, was not disputed.

Sir, other than these remarks, I believe that the Bill which is before the House to-day, is a good measure, one which will ensure that the architects’ profession can develop in the future, both in the interests of the architects themselves and in the interests of the country as a whole. Bearing in mind the tremendous developments which are envisaged in South Africa in the immediate future and in the next few decades, it is important that a profession which is so vital to the whole development of South Africa, such as the architects’ profession is, should be placed on a proper footing, as is being done in this Bill. Therefore we on this side of the House are happy to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Select Committee on this matter, I want to express, in the first place, my gratitude and appreciation to members of both sides of the House for the support I received from them in the course of our deliberations. I also wish to express my gratitude to the officials of the Department of Public Works. If ever a Select Committee has proved its worth, then it was done by this Select Committee. When this proposed legislation was read a first time and when it was submitted to the Institute of Architects, they rejected the legislation in toto. But after deliberation and lengthy negotiation, we are very grateful to be able to say that we have a Bill to-day which is being unanimously accepted by both sides of the House. In this regard the officials of the Department of Public Works deserve a great deal of the praise and the credit.

The hon. member for Musgrave mentioned the question of the draughtsmen. This is a matter which received our attention. It is also a matter which should in the future receive the attention of the Minister in particular. What the hon. member for Musgrave said, is true. It is by no means my intention to detract from the splendid work done by our architects, but to-day the draughtsman is the person who does the donkey work. If we were to remove the draughtsman, we would cause our building costs to soar sky-high. With a view to this period of tremendous prosperity which we are experiencing in the building trade, we should like to see that no restraints are imposed on the draughtsmen, who are doing very valuable work to-day. We found it very difficult to decide on a specific amount as to what the value of the building had to be. It is not possible for us to-day to lay down that they may not handle works of which the value is in excess of a figure of R100,000. I would be the last person to say that a draughtsman may not construct something which costs a R100,000. If one took sheds for instance, the hon. member for Virginia, who is one of the directors of the co-operative societies, would really take us to task, for very large sheds are being built to-day. They do not necessarily want architects for this purpose. All they really need, is a draughtsman.

However, we want to ask the hon. the Minister that when the regulations are drafted, there should be thorough consultation with the Institute of South African Architects and, furthermore, that the interests of the draughtsmen should be looked after properly. I want to conclude by reading out a letter I received from the President of the Institute of South African Architects. The letter reads as follows—

Mr. Speaker, this once again shows us the value of a Select Committee when deliberations are taking place on a very high level. We hope and trust that this procedure will always be followed.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout … [Laughter.] I humbly apologize. I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Brakpan in the gratitude he conveyed to the members of my Department for the tactful and dedicated manner in which they had set to work in order to get this measure accepted at last. Furthermore, I want to express my gratitude to the hon. member for Brakpan who as chairman did his work brilliantly, with a great deal of patience and dedication. I want to give him the assurance that, if any difficulties should crop up in the implementation of this Act, I would definitely consult with him and the other members of the Select Committee. As regards the position of the draughtsmen, I can give the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout the assurance … [Laughter.] It would seem to me as though I have but a poor opinion of the hon. member. I mean the hon. member for Brakpan, of course. I can give those two hon. members the assurance that the interests of the draughtsmen will be taken care of.

†I wish to thank the hon. member for Musgrave, as the senior Opposition member who served on this Select Committee, for the way in which he assisted the Committee. I know that at the beginning there were very grave differences. As a matter of fact, shortly after I was appointed Minister of Community Development we started with this legislation and I thought at that time that I was going to get into a very severe war with the architects and the quantity surveyors. It is not that I dislike wars, but I like to fight wars with people I do not like so much as I like architects. I want to thank the hon. member and I want to assure him that as far as draughtsmen are concerned, I will bear in mind the recommendation of the Select Committee. I think this will work itself out in practice. It may be necessary eventually to come with amendments to certain of these clauses. I can assure the hon. member that I will most certainly pay attention thereto and that I will see that nothing is done that may act against the draughtsmen in the profession. The hon. member thanked me for coming to an agreement upon a Bill in respect of which there initially were very great differences. I think he is now convinced what a good and reasonable Minister I am.

That will be the day.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that this measure can go through this House without any opposition. Any more suggestions will be welcome from both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Those persons who have an interest in this measure, have been afforded every opportunity of submitting written and/or oral evidence to the Select Committee during the 1969 Session. According to the report presented by the Select Committee, there was a division in regard to certain fundamental aspects of the Bill as read a first time. An amended Bill, retaining those fundamental matters on which there was difference of opinion, was reported Now that the Select Committee has performed its duties, I should like to express my gratitude, as I did a moment ago, to its chairman and its members for the competence and thoroughness they displayed.

During the recess the President and office-bearers of the Chapter of Quantity Surveyors approached the Secretary for Public Works with a view to ascertaining whether the Department would be prepared to have further talks in order that differences might, as far as possible, be settled within the framework of the Bill reported by the Select Committee. I attached my approval to that, and subsequently these topics were discussed. An agreed measure was arrived at without the principle of the Bill being affected. The latter deals especially with the following—

1. (i) appointments to the council shall be made by the Minister on the basis of nominations submitted by the quantity surveyors’ associations;
2. (ii) no quantity surveyors’ association shall be entrenched to the exclusion of others;
3. (iii) regulations shall be made by the Minister and not by the proposed council;
4. (iv) all actions having the force of law, shall be vested in the Minister.

These principles were adopted by the representatives of the Chapter of Quantity Surveyors, and in the course of a series of meetings, consultations were held and agreement was reached on a number of amendments which do not encroach upon the said principles. On the strength of this the Chapter indicated in writing that the Bill before the House at the moment had its full support.

Survey

Mr. Speaker, at the Second Reading of the Architects’ Bill, which has already been dealt with and agreed to by this House, I gave a short historic survey of the whole matter and also indicated the considerations that had given rise to the preparation of new legislation in substitution for the existing Act, i.e. the Architects and Quantity Surveyors (Private) Act, 1927 (Act No. 18 of 1927). As this House has been furnished with the relevant information in this regard, I do not consider it necessary to dwell on this matter again and to take up the time of this House in doing so. However, on the previous occasion I referred briefly to the quantity surveyors’ profession, mentioning that in dealing with this measure I would elaborate further on this matter in so far as it affected the members of this profession.

To start with I must mention that, after it had become obvious that the time for new legislation was ripe, a provisional draft Bill for the architects was drafted with the object that it would serve as a subject for discussion between the Department of Public Works and the Institute of South African Architects. In the course of the first discussions on this matter, a member of the quantity surveyors’ profession wanted to know whether the time was not opportune for that profession to be granted full control over its own weal and woe. This was followed up by the Chapter of Quantity Surveyors which, during February, 1968, sent to the Department a deputation under the leadership of its then president with the request that a separate draft Bill for the quantity surveyors’ profession be drafted. This request was readily acceded to. for there was on the part of the Department full sympathy with this profession in its endeavour to attain independence.

Since the commencement of the Act in 1927, this profession, which has about 600 members at present, has indeed undergone a metamorphosis. However, the fact of the matter is that the Central Council of the Institute of S.A. Architects is constituted in such a manner that the architects have an overwhelming majority on it and were given conclusive control over the quantity surveyors and their profession. By rights nobody can blame this profession, which reached mature status a long time ago, for aspiring after having exclusive control over its own fortunes. For that reason it has been decided that the State should at once assist the quantity surveyors’ profession in every way in their endeavour to attain independence. I am pleased to be able to testify that since then it has been possible to count on the assistance and co-operation of the quantity surveyors at all times. As a result it has been possible to dispose of the preparatory work in regard to the drafting of legislation in the shortest possible time. As I have already stated, any differences that existed were settled during the recess, and this Bill has the support of the organized quantity surveyors’ profession.

Principles of the Act

(1) Constitution of the Council: The Bill before the House seeks to establish a South African Council for Quantity Surveyors, which will be a statutory, independent body, similar to those of other professions in respect of which controlling bodies have already been established by way of appropriate legislation. The council will consist of 17 members to be appointed by the Minister. Twelve of them will represent the profession and will be nominated by the various quantity surveyors’ associations on such a basis as the Minister will determine with due regard to the membership. Two members will represent those universities in the Republic at which tuition in quantity surveying is being offered. From the ranks of the quantity surveyors in the service in the State, the Minister will select one person for appointment to the council, whereas provision is also being made for the nomination of two additional members by virtue of their knowledge of public affairs and the economic requirements of the country; one of whom is to be selected by reason of his knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of quantity surveying.

As the educational aspect and the standards of training are of cardinal importance, an Education Advisory Committee is to be stablished. The Minister will appoint the members of this committee, as he does in the case of the council. The committee will consist of a representative of each university offering tuition and examinations in quantity surveying, and these persons are to be professors or lecturers in quantity surveying, and are to be nominated by the respective senates of the respective universities. Two persons are to be nominated by my colleague the Minister of National Education. There will, in addition, be appointed to the committee a number of members, nominated by the quantity surveyors’ associations equal in number to the difference in number between the persons nominated by the universities and those nominated by the Minister of Education.

(2) Powers: Apart from the customary provisions for regulating its domestic affairs, the council will also be expected to advise the Minister on the following matters—

1. (a) the making of regulations for giving effect to the Act, regulations in which, inter alia, the examination recognized for the purposes of registration as a quantity surveyor will be prescribed;
2. (b) the requirements with which an association of quantity surveyors is to comply in order to qualify for recognition;
3. (c) the minimum fees which are to be chargeable by an architect for his professional services; and
4. (d) the kinds of work that are to be performed by architects alone.

What is of importance to the profession, is that the exceptionally important registration function will be carried out by the council. The council will have to keep a watchful eye on the quantity surveyors’ profession, and for this purpose it will be invested with the necessary powers for taking disciplinary steps in cases of improper conduct on the part of quantity surveyors. Similarly, provision is also being made for the council to take any such steps as it may consider expedient for the protection of the public in their transactions with members of this profession.

Funds

The income of the council will for the most part be derived from registration and annual fees. However, it is being provided that, should this be necessitated by the functions of the council, moneys may be advanced to the council from public funds, in consultation with the Minister of Finance. The council will control its own funds. Furthermore, the council will annually submit to the Minister a report on its activities and finances, copies of which will be laid upon the Table of this House at regular intervals.

Registration

Registration as a quantity surveyor will be subject to the requirements that the applicant—

1. (a) shall not be less than 21 years of age and shall ordinarily be resident in the Republic;
2. (b) shall have passed the prescribed examination or any examination recognized by the council;
3. (c) shall for a period of at least three years have performed work of a prescribed kind under the supervision or control of a quantity surveyor, or quantity surveying work of sufficient variety and of a satisfactory nature;
4. (d) shall, subject to certain exemptions, be a member of a quantity surveyors’ association; and
5. (e) shall not be subject to certain disqualifications, such as improper conduct, previous offences, being of unsound mind, insolvency, etc.

Any person who immediately prior to the commencement of this measure was registered as a quantity surveyor under the existing Act as well as the Ordinance which applies in South-West Africa, shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements for registration. However, applications in this regard must be made within six months after the commencement of the Act or within such period as the council may allow in a specific case.

In order to encourage qualified persons living beyond our borders to come to this country and to make provision for those who may settle here on a temporary basis so as to undertake major projects, provision is being made for temporary registration for periods which may not exceed 12 months and which may be extended.

To ensure that quantity surveyors who recently completed their studies, gain the necessary practical experience to round off their training properly, the Bill lays down that they are to register as quantity surveyors in training. For a period of three years after graduation they are to work under the control and supervision of a quantity surveyor before they can be registered as such. Therefore, full registration as a quantity surveyor is based on the philosophy that the person concerned has not only been trained properly in the theory of his profession, but also that he is well-equipped as regards the practical side of his work.

Control

The Bill contains a prohibition against any person who has not been registered as a quantity surveyor and who pretends to be one or performs for gain any kind of work reserved for quantity surveyors, except in cases where specific exemption will be granted under the Act or the regulations. Penal functions are being laid down for offences of this nature.

Regulations

The Bill also seeks to make regulations as to matters such as the allowances payable to members, keeping a register of quantity surveyors, prescriptions in regard to improper conduct and the procedure to be followed in inquiries, as well as rules of conduct for the profession. Irreproachability in the conduct of an architect is a prerequisite for the proper development of this profession. Preserving the integrity and enhancing the status and prestige of quantity surveyors as a professional group, will therefore be basic to these rules of conduct.

Existing Quantity Surveyors Associations

In recognition of the important role the Chapter of Quantity Surveyors has played in the development of the profession represented by it, this Bill provides that—

1. (a) at the commencement of the measure under discussion, that Chapter, under the name of the Association of South African Quantity Surveyors, shall be deemed to be a recognized quantity surveyors’ association, provided that it shall within three years comply with any requirements prescribed by regulation; and
2. (b) it shall be a body corporate—a provision which will as a matter of fact be applicable in respect of every association of quantity surveyors which receives statutory recognition.

Repeal of Laws

The repeal of the Quantity Surveyors Ordinance, 1959, of South-West Africa is being envisaged. As regards the disposal of the assets, rights, liabilities and obligations which the Chapter of Quantity Surveyors shares with the Institute of S.A. Quantity Surveyors and with its provincial institutes, appropriate provision has been made in the other measure which has already served before this House.

Conclusion

Mr. Speaker, this measure which creates the machinery whereby the quantity surveyors will come into full control of their own profession, is an important step forward. The advantages of this measure will not only permeate to the other building professions, but will definitely be of importance and significance to the country as a whole. In passing this measure we shall reach a milestone in the history of the building and construction industry in our country in the sense that now, for the first time, we shall have appropriate legislation for all the building professions, which, apart from the protection of their own and of public interests, will ensure and put beyond doubt their mature status as against one another.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is similar to the previous one, the Architects’ Bill, and what I said about the Architects’ Bill applies equally to this one. I therefore do not intend to take up the time of the House by repeating what I have said. I merely want to ask the hon. the Minister once again in the interests of the draughtsmen who, to a lesser extent, could be affected by the work of quantity surveyors, to give a similar assurance to the one he gave in regard to the previous Bill which assurance will allay the fears of the quantity surveyors. Other than this, because of the fact that the quantity surveyors as a result of negotiations during the recess, are now happy with this Bill, we on this side of the House support the second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I give the hon. member the assurance he has asked for. I want to thank him again for the part he played when this Bill was before the Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The War Graves Act, 1967 (Act No. 34 of 1967, empowers the South African War Graves Board to repair, maintain and generally take care of certain graves and burial grounds. The Board is also empowered to erect memorials and to establish gardens of remembrance. In order to achieve these objects, the Board may purchase, take on lease, hire out or alienate immovable property and also purchase movable property, exhume and reinter remains of graves, and regularly inspect or cause to be inspected all graves and gardens of remembrance falling under its jurisdiction.

Certain problems are now being experienced in the execution of these functions which can be eliminated only by amending the War Graves Act suitably. In view of the fact that the Board may and does possess property, it is essential for the Board to be able to insure such property. In the execution of its powers and duties, it is also essential for the Board to be able to insure its members against claims which may arise as a result of accidents in which its members, its staff and employees may be involved. At the same time this will protect the State against losses, because the lion’s share of the funds which the Board has at its disposal, comes from the State. In order to be able to carry out its duties in connection with the maintenance of graves, gardens of remembrance and memorials as well as the exhumation and reinterment of remains, it is obvious that the Board or its officials must have access to the land on which the graves, gardens of remembrance, etc., are situated. Most of these graves and memorials are on private property and, although certain servitudes are registered in favour of the State as regards the Cape Province, it is not the case as regards the other provinces. Therefore, if the Board is to execute its powers and duties properly, its right of access must be put beyond any doubt. Hindrance or obstruction in respect of this power is being included in the offences and penalties in terms of section 19 of the Act. But by the same token it is fair to give any person who owns land on which a direct ancestor is buried the right to refuse permission for the remains of such an ancestor to be exhumed and reinterred elsewhere. When such an owner will be given this irrefutable right, that will have to be on the distinct understanding that in that case the Board will not be responsible in any way for the further maintenance of the grave concerned.

Clause 2 (1) and (2) of the Bill amends the procedure which has to be followed in determining the travelling and subsistence allowances of members of the Board or a committee thereof. In the past the allowances were determined by regulation, and whenever the allowances were increased, the regulations had to be amended. The procedure which is now being proposed will eliminate a considerable amount of administrative work and is in agreement with the practice generally followed at present.

Clause 2 (3) contains a new principle, i.e. that the Board will have a remunerated chairman. A heavy burden rests on the shoulders of the chairman. He constantly has to undertake journeys in order to conduct negotiations and exercise supervision and always has to be available to give guidance to the staff. Consequently, it is considered advisable to remunerate him and provision is being made in the Bill for such remuneration to be determined by the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the chairman commenced his activities on a full-time basis on 1st December, 1969, provision is being made to allow him to be remunerated as from that date.

Up to now the administrative work of the Board has been done by seconding officers of the Public Service for this purpose. The Board has requested the power to appoint and control its staff itself, and consequently provision is being made for this in the Bill. This is necessitated by the fact that the Board often has to enter into duty contracts and even has to buy individual services in order to be able to do its work. The rights and privileges of officers already in the service of the Board, are protected in terms of the Public Service Act. Provision is also being made so as to enable staff members to become members of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund.

Mr. Speaker, seeing that the content of the legislation before us was requested by the War Graves Board, with some of whose members we have had discussions, it gives us great pleasure to support this legislation. We are of the opinion that clause 1, which deals with the adequate insurance of the Board’s property and the safety of its members while they are on duty, is completely justified.

Clause 2, which makes provision for proper allowances for the chairman and the members of the Board in the execution of their numerous duties, also meets with our approval. I just want to say that we on this side of this House have the greatest appreciation for the great historical task which these people are called upon to fulfil. We also agree with the provisions of clause 3, i.e. that the Board should have the power to appoint officers and employees as far as it is deemed necessary for their work. Seeing that many of the war graves with which the Board will have to deal, are situated on private property, it is only right that its members, when they act on the instructions of the Board, will be given exemption from any complaints of trespassing while they are engaged in the execution of their duties. It gives us pleasure to support this legislation.

This is the first occasion on which the hon. member for Wynberg has been acting here in her new capacity as so-called shadow Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs. If she always adopts the attitude which she adopted here this afternoon and approaches matters that objectively and if her judgment is always that good, I believe we on this side of this House will be able to cooperate well with her and the Opposition as far as matters of education and culture are concerned. We also want to congratulate her on the fact that she used Afrikaans in the first speech which she made in her new capacity. This is the first time, as far as I know, that she has used Afrikaans in this House.

Good Afrikaans.

This Bill, as is fitting, was introduced in a restful atmosphere and it is necessary that it be discussed in such an atmosphere. The Minister presented this case in great detail and very effectively. In the course of time, the South African War Graves Board, which was established in terms of Act No. 34 of 1967, has experienced various bottlenecks in the execution of its duties. It is, of course, very essential for this legislation to be supplemented whilst the principles already laid down are being retained.

Sir, there are a few aspects which are very important to me, and the first is that the powers of this Board are being extended in that the Board or its officials may now enter areas to which the Board had no access before. I remember very well that years ago, when this matter was not co-ordinated on a national basis and when similar legislation did not exist, certain people were not kindly disposed towards the bodies which undertook the task of restoring war graves, and refused them admission to the graves. Therefore we are very pleased that this provision is now being inserted by this Bill.

Another matter which is very important to me and about which I am very pleased, is that this Board may now appoint its own officials. In the past officials from other Departments were seconded to help this Board in its work, but the necessary continuity was lacking as a result of the fact that time after time it was a different official who had to do the specialized work. Therefore we are especially pleased that provision is now being made for the Board to appoint its own officials to do that work. Therefore we believe that this work which was undertaken with great success in the past, namely the location, the preservation, the tending and the maintenance of war graves, will be done even better than in the past.

Sir, the life insurance which is being given to officials and members of the Board in terms of this measure, is, of course, another very important step with which we all agree. What I found particularly striking, is the accommodating spirit which we find in one of these clauses, i.e. in respect of people who have conscientious or sentimental objections to the exhumation and reinterment of an ancestor. If there are such cases, such persons can be accommodated in terms of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I just want to say the following: By means of the general acceptance of this amending Bill, we on both sides of this House are indirectly paying grateful tribute to the memory of those who laid down their lives at the altar of sacrifice in the course of years. Sir, a people who honours its heroes and heroines will never be despised, and lastly, a people in whom the memory of its heroes and heroines continues to live, will always be able to lay claim to a continued existence.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a feeling of humility that I rise to address you; humility which is based on the fact that this is my first speech in this House, and which flows from the fact that I am following in the footsteps of worthy predecessors who have set high standards here. I can only say that I hope and wish that I shall be able to uphold their standards.

With further reference to the hon. member for Wynberg, who said that we supported this Bill in principle, I just want to say that we are convinced that these amendments are essential for the efficient execution of the duties of the South African War Graves Board. As a statutory body this Board has been in existence for three years only, but it has for several years been actively concerned with the location, the maintenance and the preservation of war graves throughout the length and breadth of our country. As is known, it first existed as a permanent committee, and before it attained its present status, the position was that people who served on the Committee were representatives of other bodies, bodies which undertook the preservation of war graves merely as part of their activities. It operated mainly through the British Forces Committee as well as the Civil Graves Committee. These were the two executives through which it functioned.

Sir, this Board has become the conscience of the nation to a certain extent. Throughout the country we have established gardens of remembrance and memorials in which we all take pride and which we regard as our grateful tribute to our predecessors. I think the amendments which are being made, remind us once again of the fact that the Board is performing a task on our behalf, actually a duty which we have, in the first place, to the deceased person. This is a task which they perform out of honour and respect in the sense that we accept that here we have a man or a woman who, for whatever the reasons were, was prepared to fight and sacrifice for what they believed in. Ironical as this may sound, in most cases this was for the sake of a peaceful coexistence. Therefore we do not ask questions, and I can say that we as a nation are grateful that we have people who are prepared to perform this task on behalf of us all.

In the second place, I think, they are performing a duty on our behalf. War graves are part of our history a relic of the past, and for the historian who is trying to reconstruct the past—a self-imposed task—it is, of course, of the utmost importance. I think in the last place they are performing a duty on behalf of us all, and in this case it is a duty to our own descendants. If we can draw inspiration from and appreciate something which exists to-day, it is our duty to ensure its preservation for our descendants so that they may derive the same measure of appreciation and pleasure from it.

To come back to the amendments which are being proposed here, I want to mention only two which we particularly welcome. Firstly, we welcome the clause which makes provision for insurance coverage, insurance coverage in the first place in respect of the considerable amount of property which the South African War Graves Board has. Any damage to that property will, of course, be a setback to their own positive programme for expansion. I think it is only right that we should be eliminating this shortcoming to-day, three years after the original legislation. Secondly, it is only right that provision should be made here for insurance coverage in respect of an injury sustained by a person such as Dr. Kieser, for example, who is the chief archivist and at the same time chairman of this Board, in the execution of duties on behalf of the Board, because such duties fall outside the scope of the normal work expected from a chief archivist. Without this provision, such a person is not covered, and that, of course, is not right.

The last point I want to make concerns the exhumation and reinterment of mortal remains. We welcome the fact that the direct descendants will have the final say in this case, because we must accept that the feeling which a descendant has towards an ancestor, differs greatly from the feeling we as the public or as members of that Board have, no matter how sincere we may be. There is a difference, and we are pleased that provision is being made for that in this legislation.

But I want to make one request, and that is that people who are, in fact, in the position to exercise this final say, should think twice before they do so. Here I am thinking in particular of the tremendous task which awaits the Board, one in which they are engaged, i.e. the consolidation of the Magersfontein graves. Here one finds spread over an area of approximately 2,000 miles—that is the distance from the one grave to the other—from Warrenton in the north to Douglas in the south and from Griquatown in the west almost to Boshoff in the east—burgher graves, graves which the Board is at present consolidating into a garden of remembrance at Magersfontein. I think it will be a pity if people are unreasonable and refuse permission for the exhumation and reinterment of the mortal remains of the burghers, because this is a matter of import to the nation as a whole, and we must preserve this heritage for the sake of posterity.

It is a great pleasure for me to welcome the hon. member for Durban (Central), and to congratulate him sincerely on his maiden speech which he has just made in this House. As he comes from the teaching profession, it is, of course, a pity that this Party deemed it fit to grasp him from that profession, but I do think that it is very essential for us to obtain people of his background and training in this House. He comes here with the necessary youth, with a very good training, and I am sure, as an ex-teacher, with the enthusiasm which is necessary for this new task which he has come to undertake here. I think his speech this afternoon proved how he feels about these matters, and I look forward to a pleasant period of co-operation with him as long as I may have this portfolio. I want to congratulate him very sincerely. I am especially pleased about the appeal he made to next of kin that they, in spite of their personal feelings about the mortal remains of their ancestors, should not refuse permission for exhumation and reinterment for that reason. Here the War Graves Board is engaged in something really noble and fine and we need everybody’s co-operation, and I am very pleased that he in particular made that appeal to those people this afternoon, one I should like to confirm. I trust that the hon. member will be happy in this House and that he will make a valuable contribution. In fact, I do not doubt that.

I should also like to convey my thanks to the hon. member for Wynberg for supporting this Bill on behalf of her side of this House. I am very thankful for that support, and I think this is the way it should be as far as this Bill is concerned. I think it holds many beautiful promises for the future. If in future the shadow Minister on that side adopts the attitude which she adopted this afternoon and supports all legislation introduced by the Minister, I think we are entering a very pleasant era as far as this portfolio is concerned. I am pleased she supports it, because I believe that the War Graves Board really performs a very important task. I think both sides of this House will agree with me that the work which this Board is doing, is highly appreciated everywhere in the country; and it is good for that Board to know, also by way of the discussion which took place here this afternoon, that they have the support of both sides of this House. I want to ask hon. members on both sides of this House that in their wanderings all over the country, they should take cognisance as far as possible of the work which this Board is doing, and if there is something which they do not like, to broach the matter, or if there is something which they believe can be improved, to raise the matter with us so that it may receive the necessary attention. I thank everyone who participated in this short discussion and for their support.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments contained in the Bill are in no way of a far-reaching nature and I want to express the hope that I shall have the general support of hon. members for this measure.

The amendments we are dealing with here are in the main aimed at—

1. (1) facilitating administration,
2. (2) further activating the territorial authorities to whom partial self-government has already been allocated in respect of education in their areas, and
3. (3) placing Native education in South-West Africa under the same legislation as applies to Bantu education in the Republic.

Section 9 of the Bantu Education Act regulates the registration of Bantu schools and all powers and duties in regard to the registration of such schools are vested in the Minister. These comprise for example the following—

1. (1) Approval of the registration of each school and the imposition of conditions for registration.
2. (2) Extension of the registration of schools registered for specified periods.
3. (3) Cancellation of registration for noncompliance with conditions of registration.
4. (4) Amendment, rescindment and addition of conditions of registration.
5. (5) Approval for the change in location of registered schools.
6. (6) Reclassification of schools.
7. (7) Approval for any change of ownership of schools.

Some of these duties can to good effect be assigned to the head of the Department. In the absence of the necessary powers of delegation, it has not been possible to make such an arrangement. Section 9 is consequently being suitably supplemented now so that the Minister may delegate or assign some of his powers and duties to the Secretary of Bantu Education. This measure ought to facilitate and expedite the administration.

In addition it is being proposed that the Minister can exempt homeland territories in respect of which Bantu territorial authorities, or legislative councils (S.W.A.), have been established from the registration provisions of section 9 with effect from the specified dates. Territorial authorities and legislative councils to whom partial self-government has already been granted, are able under the legislation in terms of which such authorities and councils have been established, to promulgate measures in regard to certain matters, inter alia, the establishment, maintenance, management and control of educational institutions, and the promotion of school and other education. As section 9 is at present worded, schools in the homelands must be registered by the Minister. In order to activate to a greater extent the territorial authorities and legislative councils, to which partial self-government has already been granted, as well as the executive councils members in question and their education departments, it is being envisaged to leave it in due course to the territorial authorities and legislative councils concerned to promulgate their own measures in regard to the establishment and registration of schools in terms of which the executive council members and their education departments will then be able to administer the establishment and registration of their schools themselves. Section 10bis (1) (b) provides in what authority the power is invested to appoint, promote, to transfer and to dismiss teachers at Bantu community schools. It is vested in a Bantu council or Bantu body which the Minister himself can appoint in terms of section 12 (in this case Bantu school councils) or a Bantu authority or Bantu council appointed by or in terms of any other law (in this case territorial authorities) depending upon in which of the two bodies the control and management of a school is vested. However, territorial authorities are legislative organs which ought not to be burdened with administrative functions such as the appointment and dismissal of teachers. In terms of the proposed amendment it will be possible to vest these functions in homeland educational departments and the Executive Council members to whom educational matters have been entrusted.

In terms of section 12 of the principal Act the control and management of Bantu schools (community schools and State schools) may also be entrusted to one of two bodies, i.e. a Bantu council or Bantu body which the Minister himself may appoint, or to a Bantu authority or Bantu council established by or in terms of any other Act. What this amounts to in practice is that Bantu community schools are controlled and managed by either Bantu school councils established by the Minister himself, or territorial authorities which are assisted by their various education departments in the homelands. However, territorial authorities obtain control over certain aspects of education in their various territories in terms of the provisions of the Bantu Authorities Act, and proclamations promulgated in terms thereof by the State President. The provision which exists in section 12 in this respect, is therefore redundant and is consequently being deleted.

Clause 5 makes the Bantu Education Act applicable to the territory of South-West Africa, including the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel. In addition it repeals existing legislation in the territory and also contains certain transitional measures. This provision is being made in the spirit of the promise made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior last year to the effect that very sparing use would be made of the powers of the State President, as laid down in section 20 of the South-West Africa Affairs Act, 1969. Native education in South-West Africa was, before being taken over by the Department of Bantu Education on 1st April, 1969, administered on more or less the same basis and pattern as Bantu education in the Republic is being administered. After the takeover there was consequently no disruption and the rendering of educational services proceeded normally as in the past. This will also be the position now that the provisions of this Bill have been made applicable in South-West Africa. This is the case because the statutory provisions and the regulations which were applicable before and after the take-over of Native education in South-West Africa, were based on that of Bantu education in the Republic.

As a result of the amendment of section 12 of the Bantu Education Act, 1953, it is also necessary to effect a suitable amendment to section 8 of the Bantu Special Education Act, 1964. This being done in clause 6. In addition the latter Act is in future, just as in the case of the Bantu Education Act, also being made applicable to South-West Africa.

With that, Sir, I have dealt with the most important aspects of this Bill. The other amendments are merely of a consequential nature.

Mr. Speaker, we support this Bill because again it is in keeping with our policy of allowing the different groups to control the affairs which intimately concern them, and one of those is, of course, education. In terms of this Bill the Minister will be giving more control to the Bantu committees themselves to control their education, and we approve of that. The Government Bantu schools are excluded, and I shall be glad if the Minister will tell us how many Government Bantu schools there are still in existence. As far as I know there are not very many. In the reserves I understand that the only ones which still exist are those which have white teachers. There are a few other Government schools on Government property, but I am concerned more with secondary schools where there are white teachers. I am speaking subject to correction now, but I should like to point out to the Minister that in the Transkei which, of course, has a different Constitution from the other reserves at the moment, there are schools which have white teachers, but which are nevertheless controlled by the Transkei Government. I should like to know why the same consideration cannot be given to other Government Bantu schools which have white teachers in the reserves. Why can they also not fall under the control of their territorial authorities, with the Government, of course, maintaining its right to appoint and dismiss white teachers, so that those white teachers will actually still be employed by the Government of the Republic? I understand that in the urban areas the community schools are controlled by school committees and school boards. In the Bantu areas there was provision for the Bantu authorities to control them, but as the Minister has explained, this provision is now being removed. As I read the Bantu Education Act, it was the regional authorities which could control the schools. The Deputy Minister has said that he is taking away the power to dismiss and employ teachers from the regional authorities, as they are concerned only with administration policy, but I hope it is not going to be the policy to take too much control away from these regional authorities, because they are after all the new governing bodies, and they should be trained to exercise proper control. By giving that authority to some other committee now, the Deputy Minister may in fact be undermining the authority of the regional authorities. We have not had any experience in this regard and I do not know how the granting of authority to the regional authorities is working out, but I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to bear this in mind. Although we are giving our approval here to the removal of certain powers from the Bantu authorities, we do not want to see the regional authorities deprived of their authority. I shall be glad if the Deputy Minister can tell us any more about the Government Bantu schools.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the hon. member for Transkei. When one reads the debates that were conducted when this legislation was first introduced by the late Dr. Verwoerd in this House in 1953 and sees how the reasoning has changed in the course of the years, one realizes that the Opposition has had no other course open to it but to accept the idiom of the National Party to a certain extent as far as the recognition of the diversity of the various ethnical groupings here in South Africa is concerned. The saying is true: One need only keep on long enough, and then the others will discover that they were wrong. At the time of the introduction of this Bantu Education, the people who laid down the principles on which it is based, said that the 1953 Bill would have very important and far-reaching effects. When we now look at the development of the education policy, we notice how it has grown in the course of the years. The changes introduced by this legislation are, from the nature of the case, not many. The only thing that is being done, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, is to improve the administration. Whereas there was an enormous lack of planning in respect of Bantu Education initially, and whereas the authority of the education bodies of the traditional Bantu community was affected—I am not speaking of the authority of the family, of paternal authority—we notice here that the education policy is coming progressively closer to what it basically was in the Bantu community before. I just want to say that the fact that these amendments are being made is proof that the Bantu, too, is accepting this education policy, and that it is integrating very harmoniously with the process of guardianship on the one hand and the process of emancipation on the other. I am sure that these amendments which are being affected here will only contribute to a further improvement later.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to support what has been said by the hon. member for Transkei. We very much welcome this new devolution of responsibility as set out in this Bill. A number of responsibilities are involved, starting with the question of the registration of Bantu schools, which is to be handed over to the territorial authority, or the legislative council if the school happens to be in South-West Africa. Reading the text of the Bill it is quite understandable that the dates on which these responsibilities can be transferred may differ in various areas.

The Bill permits the Minister to establish regional boards or local councils. I am not quite sure what a domestic council is. It is new terminology in the education field as far as I am concerned but perhaps I am merely ignorant in that regard. We do very much welcome the fact that these boards and committees, which will be established by the Minister will consist of members of the Bantu community themselves. Then they will control and manage what we understand to be, and I hope I am correct in saying this, 90 per cent of the Bantu schools because in fact this means the community schools. There are very few Government schools that we know of still in existence. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us an assurance about the basis of payment of these teachers. This is not specified in the Bill although the Bill does deal with the appointment and dismissal of teachers. I should like him to give us an assurance that the basis of payment of these teachers remains unaltered. I take it that this is in fact the case.

In terms of this Bill the Minister also has power to disestablish, if he wishes, any of the committees or boards or domestic councils which he himself establishes, if he considers it necessary. We on this side of the House welcome what appears to be an entirely new principle in dealing with Bantu education, that is that if the Minister does disestablish any such board or committee, he has to give the outgoing committee a proper hearing. It is mandatory in terms of this Bill that they shall be give a hearing. I must say we welcome that because although this provision exists in regard to European and Coloured education it is something of an innovation as far as the handling of Bantu schools is concerned. I am quite sure that this will assist in maintaining a good spirit amongst the community concerned. We therefore welcome this provision as well.

The hon. the Minister has the power to prescribe the constitution, duties, powers and privileges, etc., of these boards and committees. I should like to express the hope that they will be given proper scope to manage these affairs of theirs in a really democratic way and that they will not be hamstrung by too many restrictions—scope to the extent that they are competent to manage these affairs. I take it that in time these duties will be set out in the Government Gazette so that we will be able to see what they are. The hon. the Minister can tell us whether that is correct.

The control and management of special schools for handicapped children may also be given to the Bantu community themselves, where the Minister considers this to be suitable. I would have thought that it was a more difficult task, in many ways, to control special schools than it is to control ordinary community schools because special schools are, of course, for handicapped children. This involves specially trained teachers and a rather more complicated set-up. It would be very interesting to see how far the Minister thinks he can go in handing over this particular kind of responsibility.

Obviously the regularization of the position for accounting and pension purposes in respect of the universities of Fort Hare and Zululand and the University College of the North is something to which nobody can take exception, because we passed legislation last year giving these universities their own statutes. Their councils now control these finances. So, this is merely a consequential amendment to the Act arising out of the Acts of 1969. In regard to the general expression of views about how much tax we pay, I would like to end off by saying that the Bantu people pro rata contribute a very great deal to their education, perhaps more than any other race. I think in many cases they are made to contribute rather more than is fair under the circumstances towards their education. Because they contribute so much as things are at the moment, we particularly welcome the principle of giving back to them or handing over to them the greater responsibilities and the active participation of the community itself in the management and control of these schools to which they contribute to such a very large extent from their own pockets and from the general community funds which, as we know, are collected by them.

My last point is that, as the hon. member for Transkei has said, the school boards have been confined, as far as we know, to the urban areas and to Zululand at the moment. I take it that now that the hon. the Minister has established the Zululand Territorial Authority, he will not hesitate to hand over similar powers to the new Territorial Authority in Zululand as soon as it is properly established.

Mr. Speaker, it has really been a long time since the House was in such a pleasant and friendly mood as it is this afternoon. I appreciate it, I only hon. members on my side of the House are not beginning to think that there is something wrong with me because this legislation is going through so easily this afternoon.

They will remove you because they will think that you have also changed your allegiance.

I want to give hon. members the assurance that we on this side of the House adhere to our policy and that we are engaged in stating it strongly and positively and carrying it rapidly into effect. That is why one is grateful that the Opposition also supports the Bill this afternoon.

I have been asked how many State Bantu schools there are. It is a pleasure for me to say that there are at present seven of these schools in the Transvaal, three in the Cape, and 12 in Natal. Therefore, hon. members will see that there are only a few, i.e. a total of 22. In Natal, however, the Territorial Authority has not yet taken over Bantu education, and eight of the 12 schools in Natal are situated in the homeland. Let me at once express my appreciation towards hon. members, and particularly towards the hon. member for Wynberg for the sensible and friendly attitude which she adopted in regard to this matter. I want to inform her that in Natal, now that the Zulus have their own Territorial Authority, more powers will in due course probably be given to the Territorial Authority; including the important matter of Bantu Education.

The State Bantu schools are of course schools which are controlled directly by the department and which are fully financed by the department. This is the case in regard to all schools, with the exception of a few primary schools which are situated on State-owned property, such as forestry stations, Railway property etc. Except for these, they are post-primary schools throughout and there are White staff members on the establishment as well. The control and management of these schools is not being undertakend by Bantu school councils. When the control and management of a State Bantu school is transferred to the territorial authority, the school is known as a territorial school. These schools are controlled and managed by the territorial authority, but the appointment of White staff members is still controlled by the central department of Bantu education at the request of the territorial authority. I should like to emphasize this fact because it indicates very fine mutual co-operation which exists between the Bantu and our department in this regard. The White teachers are merely allocated to the territorial authority for service and retain the same conditions of service as before the allocation to the territorial authority, and remain on the establishment of the central department of Bantu education. With that I think I have furnished a full reply to the question of the hon. member.

The hon. member for Transkei further expressed the hope that not too many powers would be removed from the territorial authorities. This is an important question, but from the nature of the case we will not demolish those powers and take them away from them. We shall be extremely careful in dealing with the entire matter. The hon. member need therefore not be concerned about it.

The hon. member for Wynberg expressed the hope that these territorial authorities, and particularly the Department of Bantu Education of these territorial authorities, “will get sufficient scope”. It is in fact the intention of this amendment in the Bantu Education Bill to do precisely what that hon. member has asked for. We do in fact want to afford the Bantu Education Department greater opportunities. We want to, as was said in the Second Reading, activate them, but I just want to add that we will of course have to, and shall do this gradually. On the other hand, we are really eager to allocate more powers to the Bantu and this Bill is consequently an obvious demonstration of the desire on our part to allocate more and greater powers to them. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to make mention of the fact that it affords one great pleasure to see how many Bantu there are in practice who are undertaking these tasks with great responsibility; particularly with regard to what we mentioned a moment ago, namely Bantu Education.

Lastly I want to say that the hon. member for Wynberg was quite right in raising the point that special education was of course considerably more difficult. We realize this only too well and we will for that reason be more careful in regard to that type of education. We can however, mention with praise the Bantu who have with exceptional dedication already done important work in regard to special Bantu education in our country, and who are still doing it. In this pleasant and friendly spirit I want to move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Clause 1 provides for the definitions relevant to this Bill and I wish to refer particularly to the definition of “identity number”, which is defined as meaning an identity number referred to in section 3. If one looks at section 3 (2), it says that the identity number shall be compiled in the prescribed manner out of figures and shall, in addition to a serial number and a control number, consist of a reproduction, in figure codes, of the prescribed particulars, and no other particulars whatsoever, of the person to whom it has been assigned. In other words, the Bill as it is before us is completely non-committal as to what should be contained in the identity number and what should be coded. I have two difficulties. One is this. Perhaps I am wrong and the hon. the Minister can assist me, but I find no power in this Bill for regulations to prescribe the contents of an identity number. Clause 10 of the Bill refers to the power to make regulations as to the form and composition of identity documents, but I see no reference anywhere in this Bill to the right to prescribe the particulars to be contained within the identity number. Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether I am correct in that regard.

Now, the hon. the Minister did indicate in the course of discussion of this Bill in the Second Reading that one of the particulars which could be included in the coded identification number was the population group. If I understood him correctly that group would be determined according to the normal practice which is now applied in South-West Africa to determine the groups without referring to the Race Classification Act. In other words, the rigidity of race classification which is necessary to comply with the law in the Republic is now not to be applicable there, but there will be a population grouping. I do not know whether the Minister could, because of the fact that the definition leaves all this to be prescribed by regulation, perhaps elaborate on his explanation as to how it is intended that the identity number will be compiled and where the power is in the Bill to do so, because as I say, I have not been able to find it myself. Secondly, will he tell us whether I am correct in saying that the determination of the population group will be left to the normal procedure which now applies in South-West Africa for this determination for purposes such as the voters’ roll?

The hon. member is quite correct in his deduction that the practice in South-West Africa will serve to determine the population group. It is not necessary for me to say now how it is done there, because it is known. But that is the pattern which will be followed here, and it will be included in the identity number.

The concern in connection with the provision of the power to make regulations is thoroughly covered by clause 3 (2), which reads as follows in Afrikaans—

The expression “op die voorgeskrewe wyse” means that it can be done by regulation. It is sufficient to cover those powers

I do not want to extend this debate as to whether that is so, but I do not think the hon. the Minister is quite correct. Perhaps the matter could be considered by the legal advisers, but if an Act provides that something shall be done in a prescribed manner, then there must be contained in that Act who is to prescribe that matter; and in so far as the composition of the document is concerned that is clearly dealt with in clause 10 of the Bill, but there is no legal power vested in the State President in this Bill to prescribe the contents of the identity number. But I leave it at that. I think the Minister would be well advised to go into this point.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we welcome the assurance he has given us that as far as he and the Government are concerned the identification of the population of South-West Africa into population groups can be done according to the customs of South-West Africa without this rigid, hard, fixed race classification law that the Government considers necessary for South Africa. I want to say that we welcome this approach and we trust that that will be the whole approach of the Minister and the Government in future when dealing with this very difficult and personal problem of the inhabitants of South-West Africa under this Bill.

May I just put a question to the hon. the Minister, i.e. whether he is satisfied that the pattern which is applied in South-West Africa is good enough for the smooth operation of this Bill?

Yes, for the operation of this Bill it is satisfactory, although I have already indicated that the changes in the question of population determination may be discussed in the future. At this stage, however, the present form of identification according to custom is regarded as satisfactory for the operation of this measure.

We made it clear in the Second Reading of this Bill, as also in the similar Bill dealing with the Republic of South Africa, that we have no objection to and consider it necessary that the members of the population of South-West Africa, as also the citizens of South Africa, should have an individual means of identification. We have no objection, as we had no objection in the other Bill, to the establishment of a central register of the personal details. But we still have the same objection to this Bill that we had to the other Bill, and that is that the identification document contemplated is cumbersome and contains unnecessary details, particularly when it comes to South-West Africa. The hon. the Minister and hon. members, as well as you, Sir, are aware of the composition of the population of South-West Africa, of the vast number of Ovambos and the other non-White peoples like the Hereros, the Basters, etc. If this Bill is to be meaningful at all, the information contained in clause 2 for inclusion in the identity documents must be extracted from the total population of South-West, and surely that is an impossible and an unnecessary task so far as those people are concerned. Therefore I wish to move, in order to be realistic in our approach to identity documents, the following amendment—

In other words, I want to provide that the identity document to be issued to the perma-nent residents of South-West Africa will contain an identity number, the date of issue of the identity document, the full name of the individual, an indication as to whether or not he is a South African citizen and a recent photograph of himself if he has attained the age of 16 years—a simple form of identification which is practicable. I should like to ask hon. members opposite, who are more conversant with and represent South-West Africa, to indicate to this Committee whether they believe that the contents of paragraphs (e) to (m) can be obtained and can be applied in so far as the population of South-West Africa is concerned. It is recent history that because of the difficulties of control, etc., there was the red line across South-West Africa. We have advanced beyond that stage, but to suggest that for every citizen of South-West Africa these details can be obtained and can be placed in an identity document is, I think, expecting the impossible. The Minister will tell me what this clause says, i.e. that these details may be included. But why legislate for permissive powers in an attempt to produce an identity document when that attempt will be a waste of time, of energy and of manpower in view of the complex nature of the population of South-West Africa?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR: The hon. member’s amendment is aimed at depriving the register of very valuable data. For example, it is essential that information about immunization should be indicated in the register and in the identity document. In what other way can these matters be regulated? The hon. member describes the proposed identity document as cumbersome, but it will indeed be cumbersome to have only certain information in the document, which would mean having to write to each and every person in order to obtain the missing information, while all this information can be shown on the document to the benefit of the public itself. In the circumstances I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

There is one point which I had hoped I had made clear but which I want to restate. We have accepted that documents can be centralized in a central register. To that we have no objection. Our amendment deals only with the identity document to be issued to the individual. The question of the register we have settled, already under the Bill relating to the Republic. My amendment refers only to the elimination of all this additional information from this identity document, a document which we believe should only be a simple means of identification. We have no objection, as I have said, to all the different documents and licences normally issued to an individual to be recorded in a central register.

The hon. member’s object is to reduce the value of this identity document. It should not only be a piece of paper on which your name and your photograph appear. After all, any person in any part of the world can take any piece of paper and put his photograph on it, but it will mean nothing to him; it will have no status and serve no useful purpose. We do not want a mere identification. On the contrary, we want a document of this nature to be useful in other respects as well. The hon. the Minister has already referred to the question of immunization. Let us look at the value this document may have as far as one’s driver’s licence is concerned. To me it will have very little value if particulars of my driver’s licence are recorded in a register in Pretoria. It can only be of value to me if I have it with me, and not just in a loose form, but combined with other documents in a booklet. Then, if I had to show my driver’s licence, I would have it at my disposal. As such this can be of use to me. If, for example, I have been immunized against polio, it would after all not be of great use to me if I did not have proof of my immunization with me, but at my home or in an office in Pretoria. The same applies to proof that I am allergic to certain injecttions. The use of this proposed identity document is in fact that all these certificates and proofs are combined in one document. Then I would not have four, five or six different documents which I would have to keep together continually so as to be able to produce them when these things are required. To have everything combined in one booklet will above all be of use to the individual himself. A register may be of benefit to the State, but when It comes to the individual, the system becomes useful only when all his documents are combined in one and the same booklet. The hon. member for Green Point’s object is to make it useful to the State, but not to the individual. It would water down this legislation to such an extent that we could not accept it.

Mr. Chairman, our objection to this clause is that it extends the responsibility for the notification of any change of his address beyond the individual himself. We have outlined our objection to this more extensively during the debate on the Bill which applies this system to the Republic. For those same reasons we are also against this provision.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The registration of a person’s marital status, and, if he is married, the particulars of his marriage, are inseparable from a system of population registration. Similarly, the identification of a person in regard to his marital status or the particulars of his marriage are as important as the identification of his birth and other personal data. As an essential subdivision of the broad system of population registration and identification which has already been accepted in principle by this House, the registration of marriages is also being reviewed. At the same time, the solemnization of marriages and related matters are also being examined in order to eliminate hitches and to adjust to present conditions and tendencies.

The most important amendments which are being proposed are the following

1. (a) The abolition of the publication of banns of marriage, the publication of a notice of intention to marry, and a special marriage licence as statutory prerequisites for a marriage. This is covered in clauses 5 and 6.
2. (b) That no girl under the age of 15 years, instead of 16 years as the Act stipulates at present, shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage, except with the permission of the Minister. This is contained in clause 9.
3. (c) The application of the Marriage Act in South-West Africa and the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel. This is covered by clause 13.
4. (d) Provision that the administration of the Marriage Act in respect of Bantu in the Republic and the Native nations in

the Territory of South-West Africa be assigned to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. This relates to the definition of “Minister” in clause 1.

The purpose of banns of marriage and notice of intention to marry is to give publicity to a proposed marriage in order to afford interested parties an opportunity of objecting to it and in this way to prevent undesirable marriages. A marriage is invalid if one of the following three factors is present—

1. (a) one or both of the parties concerned are already married;
2. (b) one of the parties is a White and the other a non-White person; and/or
3. (c) the parties concerned are related to each other within the prohibited degree of blood relationship.

A marriage is voidable if one or both of the parties are still under age and the necessary permission, whether from the parents or the Minister, in the case of a boy or girl under a certain age, has not been obtained.

As far as can be established, the publication of banns was introduced by church decree in the year 1215 A.D., and incorporated in the “Echt Regelment” of 1580. In this way it became part of our marriage law and was incorporated in our marriage legislation. As I have said, the purpose of banns is apparently to give publicity to a proposed marriage in order to afford interested persons an opportunity of raising legitimate objections to the marriage. The publication of banns undoubtedly served a purpose in times when congregations were small and established and when everybody knew one another, but in modern society, where congregations are large and large numbers of the population constantly change their places of residence, it has, apart from its traditional value, no significance. The publication of a notice of intention to marry which is pasted up in magistrates’ offices is a later development of the system of the publication of banns in churches. As in the case of banns, its purpose is publicity, but whether it serves this purpose is extremely doubtful. No case of a proposed marriage which did not take place because its undesirability came to light as a result of the publication of banns, has come to notice in the past ten years.

Another departure from the system of banns is the procurement of a special marriage licence, i.e. without the publication of banns or of a notice of intention to marry. For purposes of information it may be mentioned that more than 36 per cent of all marriages between Whites already take place by means of special marriage licences.

Another factor, perhaps the most important, is that the defective publication of banns or of intention to marry results in invalid marriages being contracted. Each of the parties to a marriage must either have banns published in the congregation to which he or she belongs, or cause a notice to be published in the magistrate’s office of the district in which he or she lives. Banns must be published on three consecutive Sundays before the marriage, or the notice must be displayed for an uninterrupted period of 15 days before the marriage. Unless these provisions are strictly complied with, the banns or notice is invalid and any marriage which is solemnized in terms of such banns or notice is invalid. Quite a number of such marriages which would otherwise have been quite valid occur and result in embarrassment and grief for the parties concerned. The proposal for the abolition of these prerequisites to a marriage was discussed on 23rd April, 1969, with 23 of the largest church denominations and certain interested parties. Only one denomination objected to the abolition. Some denominations, although they supported the proposal, expressed the view that they wished to retain the publication of banns as a domestic arrangement in their churches. There is no objection or prohibition against this, and every church is free to make such domestic arrangements, but they will have no legal significance. All interested departments are in favour of the proposal, and it may be mentioned that it will save magistrate’s offices a considerable amount of time. The law advisers were also consulted and they are of the opinion that the abolition of this prerequisite to a marriage involves no risk that marriages solemnized in the Republic will not be recognized in other countries.

In order to adjust the registration of marriages to the new system of population registration or identification, it is proposed that a party to a marriage will be required to produce his or her identity document to the marriage officer or, if he or she is not in possession of an identity document, to furnish a prescribed affidavit to the marriage officer. It is proposed that the marriage officer will attach a marriage certificate to the identity document of each of the parties after the solemnization of a marriage.

In connection with permission for minors to marry, the present position is that a boy under the age of 18 years and a girl under the age of 16 years must, in addition to the permission of their parents, obtain the permission of the Minister of the Interior in order to contract a valid marriage. It is proposed that in respect of girls the age be amended to 15 years. Sir, in this connection I should like to mention that the vast majority of applications referred to the Minister are from girls in their sixteenth year, and are accompanied by written permission for the proposed marriage from the parents on both sides. Only a small percentage of these applications submitted to the Minister are refused, and it may be mentioned that in such cases the couples marry in any case when the girl reaches the age of 16 years.

All applications for ministerial permission for child marriages are referred to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions in the first instance. Trained officers of the said Department visit the parties concerned as well as their parents in loco, and after a thorough investigation of all the aspects of the matter, comprehensive reports are submitted to the Department of the Interior and its Minister. It is obvious that such investigations necessarily take up much time, entail considerable expense and require a good deal of manpower. Hon. members will also appreciate that delay is therefore unavoidable and that the fact that applications cannot be decided upon immediately, causes dissatisfaction on the part of, and often great inconvenience for, the parents of couples who wish to marry.

Sir, it is rather important to examine the historical background of child marriages. I want to refer to it briefly. Until 1935 there was no legislation in the Transvaal, the Cape Province and Natal in connection with the age at which young people may marry. The common law, i.e. Roman-Dutch Law, applied, and this provided that the marriage age was the same as the age of puberty, namely 12 years for girls and 14 years for boys. Young people, of course, still needed the permission of their parents in order to marry if they had not yet reached the age of 21 and attained majority. In the Republic of the Orange Free State there were in fact statutory provisions which laid down the marriage age for young people at 16 years for girls and 18 years for boys. In the other three provinces, with far and away the largest populations, the respective ages were 12 and 14. This is how our grandparents and ancestors lived for many years and produced healthy families. In 1935 this Parliament thought fit to raise the marriage age to 16 years for girls and 18 years for boys, as was already the case in the Free State. But as far as the age for girls is concerned, the then Minister was not so convinced himself whether the age should be laid down at 16 years or at 15 years. Strong consideration was given to 15 years, especially in view of the fact that in our warm climate our children grow up faster and develop sooner. However, 16 years was decided upon, but it was realized that provision had to be made for exceptional cases, hence the provision that exceptions can be made in suitable cases with the permission of the Minister of the Interior. The cases they had in mind were especially those of premarital pregnancy. This is the way in which this Act has been administered since 1935.

It also appears from publications of the UN that a minimum marriage age of 15 years for girls is advocated and that this minimum age applies in most countries. The parental authority still applies, as I have said, and in the case of minors the parents will still have to give their permission for the marriage. The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions supports the amendment, but I want to add that some of the officers of that department hold other views on this. All the indications are therefore that girls above the age of 15 years should be allowed to marry without the permission of the Minister, provided, of course, that they comply with all the statutory requirements, but if the present provisions do not keep pace with the times in which we are living, have little or no practical value and are simply a nuisance, they must be changed.

This matter is, however, not a political one. It is a practical matter and hon. members must not feel obliged to reject or to accept the proposed amendment, and I am prepared to leave this specific clause, i.e. clause 9, to be decided by a free vote of this House.

Provision is made in clause 13 for the Marriage Act to apply in South-West Africa and the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel. Because the Population Registration Act, in which the various races in the Republic are defined, does not apply in those territories, the word “race”, which relates to classification, is substituted in sections 2 and 3 (clauses 2 and 3) by the words “population group” and the latter expression is used wherever necessary in the amending Bill.

In terms of the definition of “Minister” in section 1 of the Act, the administration of marriage affairs in respect of all population groups rests with the Minister of the Interior. The departmental implementation of the provisions of the Act in respect of Bantus is, however, carried out by officials of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, who are authorized to do so by the Minister of the Interior. In respect of the largest section of the population, the Act is therefore administered on behalf of the Minister of the Interior by officials of another department. It is therefore proposed that the administration of the Marriage Act in respect of Bantu in the Republic and the Native nations in South-West Africa be assigned to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. (Clause 1—definition of “Minister”.) It is also desirable that provision be made for regulations to be drawn up for the particular requirements of marriage affairs as far as the Bantu and the Native nations are concerned. (Clause 11 (1) (b).)

It is regarded as essential that the marriage formula as prescribed by section 30 should be applicable to all marriage officers, but nothing is being done which will detract from the “ceremonial solemnity” of a marriage which is solemnized by a clerical marriage officer.

Marriage officers are appointed by the State and all marriage officers, including ministers of religion and others who are connected with church denominations, act as State officials when they solemnize marriages. A marriage contract is probably the most important contract between two persons, and it is essential to have uniformity, at least in respect of the minimum requirements and basic procedure, in the solemnization of a marriage. The questions and statement at present contained in section 30 (clause 10) are already incorporated in the formulas of most clerical marriage officers. It is proposed to authorize the relevant Minister to issue regulations. At the moment this authority is vested in the State President. (Clauses 11 (1) (a).)

The other amendments which are being proposed (clauses 1 (b), 4, 7, 8, 11 (2) and 12) are merely consequential amendments, and it is not considered necessary to discuss them.

In conclusion I wish to point out that, in order to fit in with the proposed system of population registration and identification, the Bill will come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation.

Mr. Speaker, the House is indebted to the hon. the Minister for the full explanation he has given regarding this Bill. But I think that a matter which is of concern is the basic approach which is linked up with the mechanization or computerization of our lives. In the process of reaching administrative efficiency it becomes necessary in this legislation to deal with a very basic concept which is sacred in all religions of the world and that is the ceremony of marriage. Sir, it has concerned us in looking at this measure as to whether sufficient and proper thought has been given to the effect which it will have on the traditional and basic approach to marriage which is that it is a religious ceremony. Through the passage of time there has been coupled with that religious ceremony certain civil responsibilities and reciprocal duties.

I want to come immediately to the clause which I believe has not had sufficient consideration and in regard to which there has not been sufficient consultation with the churches and that is the clause dealing with the marriage formula. Sir, you will know that the various denominations—the Jewish and Christian churches—have through the years and through their customs adopted a formula of marriage which has been recognized and which until to-day is still recognized according to our law because of the provisions which now exist in section 30 of the principal Act, a section which the Minister now wishes to do away with. The position up to the present time has been that where a marriage was solemnized by a minister of religion, he was free to follow the rites usually observed in his own particular church or religious denomination but the marriage officer who is the minister was not bound to use any specific words in the solemnization of the vows and in the declaration that there is no reason why the marriage should not be entered into. Under this Bill it will now be incumbent upon every religious denomination to use the ipsissima verba, the exact words, which appear in this Act. If they do not do so. then the marriage could be challenged as being invalid.

The hon. the Minister says that there is general approval of these terms but I have taken the trouble to investigate the position with ministers of religion of various churches, and one finds that over the years all churches have adopted certain words which express the same intention as is contained in this section. For instance, looking at the Methodist marriage service, I find that the minister is instructed to say to the parties—

In the Presbyterian service we find that the words are very similar—

Different wording but words of similar intent are adopted in the Anglican Church, in the Jewish faith and in the Dutch Reformed Church as well. These words differ vastly, not in intent but in language, from the words which will now become compulsory in terms of this particular clause of the Bill. You, Sir, will be aware of the wording used in the Dutch Reformed Church. May I quote just one portion of it—

The marriage formula is not being changed.

I do not think it was the intention. But if the hon. member will look at clause 10 he will find that section 30 of the principal Act used to read—

The words “if he is a minister of religion or a person holding a responsible position in a religious denomination or organization, may follow the rites usually observed by his religious denomination or organization, but if he is any other marriage officer he” are now proposed to be omitted. Then in the proposed new subsection (2) it is provided that—

The words “subject to the provisions of subsection (1) ” are now proposed to be inserted, so the power which they have had up to this very moment to deal with this question of declaration as to whether or not one is aware of any reason why the marriage should not take place, is now removed. Sir, I am sure that this is not the intention, but this is the sort of difficulty that one comes across—and I speak as a lawyer—when one tries to oversimplify in codifying the law and to provide for the programming of a computer.

The hon. the Minister says that this has had the approval of the various churches. Let me assure him, Sir, that that is not what the churches believe. It is true that the Bill was published for general information about two or three weeks ago. I have a letter here from a senior minister of one of the churches in which he says that he was pleased to have his attention drawn to this, and the position which he holds in his church is such that if there had been consultation he would have known about it. I think it has been rather left to the churches to become aware of the contents of the Bill without specifically drawing their attention to these aspects.

That, Sir, deals with clause 10. I think it is something which needs further consideration. I think more time should toe given for it to be considered on the proper occasion. I would not like to see this House adopting the second reading of a Bill which embodies the provisions of that particular clause. I believe that if this is something to be corrected, it should not be a matter of a correction in the committee stage but that the correction should be made before we take this stage of the Bill. I will therefore move an appropriate amendment a little later, but before I do that I want to deal with one or two other aspects of the variations which will now become part of our law.

I want to say again that some of the provisions which are being introduced here must be very carefully examined. I want to refer, for instance, to the clause which requires the production of certain documents to a marriage officer. We are doing away with another tradition or at least we are doing away with the legal necessity of it, and that is the publication of banns. It is true that the churches may, in carrying out their normal procedures, continue to publish banns. I trust that that procedure will be adopted by the various denominations. I believe that the publication of banns creates a family within the “gemeente” or congregation. It is unfortunate that we legislators must now legislate and say that the publication of banns is no longer necessary for us. But again it is a question of mecchanization; it is a question of details to be inserted in this document which we will now have to carry to identify ourselves. But it is unfortunate that it is again affecting tradition and affecting an important part of life. But we appreciate that if we are to become mechanized, we shall find these things happening to us.

Then, Sir, I want to come to the question of production of documents. This Bill will now provide that a couple wishing to marry must produce the identity documents issued under the provisions of the Population Registration Act of 1950 or the identity documents under the South-West Africa Act of 1970 or an affidavit. Sir, what is the purpose of the identity document other than to identify the individual? Sir, race classification into a population group has nothing to do with the marriage laws of South Africa. Sir, I would like to remind you again that it is only under the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act which was passed in 1949 that the question of race or population group becomes material. But that is not a prohibition on people of different races marrying, that is between Whites and any other race or Coloureds and any other race, or Bantu and any other race. There is no prohibition of marriages between Coloured and Bantu, although of course the Coloureds may feel it desirable that there should be some move in that direction. But the point I am trying to get at is that under Act 55 of 1949 the only marriage which shall not be solemnized is one between a European and a non-European, and that does not appear from an identity document. It may be a conclusion which can be drawn from certain race classifications. If one goes further into the definition of what a European is, completely different tests are applied than those which lead to the classification on your identity document, because section 1 (a) (ii) reads that the only question is whether any party to such marriage professing to be a European or a non-European, as the case may be, is in appearance obviously what he professes to be and is able to show, in the case of a party professing to be a European, that he habitually consorts with Europeans as a European, or in the case of a party professing to be a non-European, that he habitually consorts with non-Europeans as a non-European. That is the only question of race which arises, but now there is to be the production of a race classification document. Sir, the hon. the Minister knows that in the application of the race classification laws as they are now, with the determination of the race of an individual by his ancestry without regard to his appearance and without regard to his acceptance and without regard to the quantum of Coloured blood that he might have in him, because he has one ancestor who is Coloured he is classified as Coloured. Yet under this law there will not be a single marriage officer who would refuse to marry that man as a European. Why must we have this now? Why must these people now be forced, when there is no law against their marriage, to produce population registration documents to a marriage officer? Sir, this has been anticipated in this country and it has caused to my knowledge heartache to people who, otherwise than having this position to face up to, would be able to marry and to carry on their lives as they have lived them with the people by whom they have been accepted and with whom they have associated. If this law is to be applied, then let the Minister come into this House and amend the Mixed Marriages Act and say how far he is now going to go in attempting to regiment the lives of citizens in terms of their race classification under the race classification laws, because that is what is now being done under this Bill. It is unnecessary. The Minister and hon. members know that the procedure adopted at present is a perfectly satisfactory one and complies with the laws of to-day, namely the production of a birth certificate or an affidavit and to leave it to the ministers of religion concerned, who probably know the people concerned intimately as members of their congregation, to decide whether or not to perform the marriage ceremony.

What about marriages before the magistrate?

The magistrate must then apply the law. If a person chooses to go to the magistrate’s court to be married in a civil ceremony without religious rites, the magistrate must apply the law as he applies it in any other sphere and decide whether they are European or not European by appearance and by acceptance. That is his task, and not to find out whether they have an ancestor with Coloured blood which makes them now in the year 1970 compelled of necessity to be classified as Coloured under the race classification laws.

What will happen to their children after they are married?

The hon. member has this bogy which we have had in this House over and over again. I believe, as everybody else in this country believes, that marriages across the colour line are undesirable because of the visitation upon the children under the laws of this land. But let me say to the hon. member, that there are many families and many children in this country who have been born of what he would regard as mixed ancestry under the rigid race classification laws but who are good citizens and are accepted as White citizens.

Sir, this law is going to be applied to South-West Africa. Is the White population of South-West Africa standing in jeopardy of being destroyed because there is no race classification law in South-West Africa? But, Sir, I must not get away from the Bill. The point I am trying to stress is that the introduction of race classification by the production of a population registration identity card into the marriage laws of South Africa is a further intrusion into the liberties of our people at the present moment when they can marry provided they are both Europeans through acceptance by the people with whom they consort. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Potchefstroom knows that the production of an identification document means that a person, because he is classified as Coloured purely by ancestry, irrespective of his appearance, must be regarded as a non-European, whereas without the production of an identity card and on the application of the law as it stands, he would be accepted as a European.

Is the hon. member not by implication now pleading for mixed marriages?

I have said quite clearly that the law at the moment is that there shall not be a marriage between a European and a non-European. But what is now implied by the introduction of the identity document is that a marriage shall not take place between a person who is classified as a Coloured person under the Population Registration Act and a White person. As against that a person at the present time under our marriage laws is not judged by his ancestry, but by what we have always advocated in this House, namely looking at their birth certificates and not those of previous generation. He is judged and it is determined whether he is a European simply by his appearance and his acceptance, a test which the hon. members opposite have said should be removed from this test of classification in South Africa. I am not pleading for mixed marriages, but I am pleading that where there is a humane means, of determining the difference between a European and a non-European in a practical and realistic way. that test should not be replaced by the rigidity of race classification.

There are other clauses in this Bill which I feel should be further considered. I do not propose to deal with the question of the age limit, because that will be done by other hon. members on this side. But in view of what I have indicated, so far as concerns the extent to which this Bill now affects the existing laws in regard to mixed marriages, it may itself require either an amendment of the Bill before us or an amendment of the Mixed Marriages Act; and also, as I have tried to indicate by reading from the prayer-books of the various religious denominations, there is a real danger in the fact that they must now use in their marriage services the insissima verba of this Act. Apart from the inconve nience and cost necessitated by reprinting their prayer-books or their marriage ceremony, I believe it also unnecessarily interferes with the traditional services and customs and usages of the various denominations in South Africa.

That is a gross exaggeration.

I would be very happy to allow the hon. member for Piket-berg to read the prayer-books which I have here and let him compare those with the words which are now in the Act, and then I wan! to ask him if he really believes that in the middle of a religious service of the nature indicated there should now be a prosiac form of undertaking. I accordingly wish to move—

It struck me at the beginning that the hon. member who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, had the same respect for marriage which we in South Africa probably have traditionally for this momentous step in the life of every person. For that reason it is so much the more a pity that he once again read into this Bill too, sinister things which do not exist, and that he came forward with statements which were merely intended to cloud issues which we can discuss soberly, as well as expressions such as “computerizing of our lives” and other things which he mentioned towards the end of his speech in order to sow suspicion against legislation which in actual fact, as was said by one of the hon. members by way of interjection, need not at all have been presented as dramatically as it was done. I want to reply briefly to a few of the matters to which the hon. member referred.

In the first place, we have his observations in regard to clause 10 of the Bill, which, as he indicated, deals with the words to be used when a marriage officer declares a marriage solemnized. I was glad to notice that the hon. member had respect for the church traditions as they developed over the years, respect which I, and each of us on this side of the House, share with him. But I want to differ with him when he says that with this clause in the legislation the respect we have and ought to have will dissappear from the lives of people. There is one thing I can tell him, i.e. that as far as the Nederduitse Hervormde Kerk van Afrika is concerned, we have a marriage formula which corresponds to a large extent to those of the other sister churches, but even in those marriage formulas there are in a few places, in the words being used, minor differences which have by no means detracted from the marriage ceremony. I do not know whether this is the case with the English churches. But I want to tell you, Sir, that except for the promise which is made by the couple that is getting married, and which is made jointly by them, the Afrikaner sister churches also require a separate declaration be made by each of the parties agreeing to the marriage. I doubt whether the same procedure is followed in all of our English church denominations. Through the addition of this declaration that has to be made, no change has been effected to, and nothing has been done to detract from, the dignity of the marriage ceremony. Apart from the declaration made jointly by the couple, it happened on countless occasions that I caused the two parties to make the following declarations: Do you declare here before God and His holy congregation that you have taken and are now taking so and so here present as your lawful wife; do you promise to keep her faithfully as a pious and loyal husband is obliged to keep his lawful wife in accordance with the pronouncements of the Holy Gospel, etc. This was done on countless occasions. Actually, this merely formed an addition to the original marriage formula and. as far as I am concerned, it did not detract from the marriage formula; rather than detracting from it, it added an additional kind of responsibility that was being required from the parties to the marriage. Sir, nothing contained in this Bill, as I read it, prohibits in any way the continued and full use of that formula. In fact, as a clergyman I say that I would find a pity if any clergyman, no matter what church he represents, were to hide behind such a clause in order to detract from our fine old church formulas. I trust that those formulas will still be used, and I do not doubt for a moment that this will be done. When marriages were solemnized in the past, there were also statutory requirements which were complied with by many church denominations, although, I fear, not by all of them. One of these requirements was that, after the couple had replied to the questions put to them and before they replied separately, the marriage officer announced in the church that no lawful impediment to the solemnization of that marriage had been found. This declaration does not have anything to do with the formula, but it gave effect to statutory requirements. Now I foresee that if this clause is agreed to, it will still in some way or other be possible, even if it is not mentioned in the church books as such, to include this in the ceremony so that this question may still be put to a couple that wants to get married. Before and after asking that question the requirements laid down in the church book may still be complied with as usual. There is no necessity for a church book having to be rewritten in order to comply with these requirements. There have already been instances where clergyman of one and the same church have disagreed amongst themselves in regard to the manner in which a marriage is to be solemnized. I have on occasion attended marriage ceremonies during which the clergyman first read the marriage formula subsequent to which he held up to the couple and to the congregation a meditation taken from the Word of God. And then again, on another occasion in the same church, this was done the other way round—first a meditation and then the marriage formula. Nothing is being detracted from the church ceremony, and I do not think that there are any grounds for argument in what the hon. member—in good faith, I assume—did in fact describe as detracting from this ceremony.

I want to come to the second objection, i.e. the objection to clause 5, which deals with the publication of banns. Let me also say in this regard that, what I feel in respect of the marriage formula and the use thereof, I also feel in regard to banns of marriage. I cannot visualize at awl that the proposed amendment in clause 5 will dispense with the publication of banns of marriage in a church. In fact, the position as stated by the various church denominations is that this traditional institution will be proceeded with as a church institution, although there will be no need for the State to control it administratively. I was a clergyman for almost 20 years, and as such I solemnized many marriages. Now I want to mention to the hon. member a few of the difficulties that may arise in regard to the publication of banns. In the first place, it is being required that a couple are to have their banns published in the congregation to which each of them belong. Now, they do not always belong to one and the same congregation; one may belong to one congregation whereas the other may belong to another congregation or even to another church. As marriage officers we were unable to solemnize any marriage before the banns of both parties had been shown to us. What is the marriage officer to do when he arrives at the church, where all the relatives are present, to solemnize a marriage and the bridegroom informs him that he did not bring with him his banns of marriage from Pretoria? Such incidents have occurred; in fact, they occur every now and then. What happens in a case where a congregation is vacant and where banns cannot be published for three consecutive Sundays? In such a case it was always necessary to seek ways and means, and banns were perhaps displayed on the church door or published in a Sunday school. However, there had to be compliance with the legal requirement. As far as I am concerned, the publication of banns of marriage in a church is one of those fine traditions which help to impress people who wish to get married with the gravity of the step they are about to take —that marriage is an institution which, as it is described in the formula, has to please God and was instituted by Him. For that reason I believe that the fact that it is now being provided here that banns will no longer be necessary, will not bring about any change as regards all those people who love the church— in fact, it may rather lead to an enrichment of the lives of people in that now it is no longer necessary for them to comply with a statutory requirement, but exclusively with a dictate of the heart. I am convinced that churches will succeed in encouraging couples to have their banns published so that the congregations concerned may also take cognisance of what is happening within the circle of the family of the faith. In that way it may lead to a further enrichment and intensification of the lives of people involved in that important day.

In the third place, and here we had the old story once again, the hon. member referred to the “hardship” and “heartache” which this measure could bring about in view of the fact that the identity document would now have to be produced. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Wynberg says we are laughing at it; this is not the case. In fact, it is a source of sadness to me that people can take it upon themselves, apparently the hon. member for Wynberg as well, to hink of members sitting on this side of the House as persons who have no feeling for their fellow-man, or who do not know about “heartache” and about people being hurt. To have sympathy, is not the exclusive right of members of the Opposition; they are not the only people who are thinking about it. We do too, of course. In fact, it is for the very purpose of alleviating that “heartache” that we are introducing this legislation. Because we created for 300 years circumstances which have brought about “heartache” in the lives of people, does it mean that we must carry on in that vein? People are so quick to refer to the legislation of the past 20 years, but they should rather refer to the period of 280 years and more when there was no legislation and when circumstances were created which we have here in the Western Cape and in the Republic to-day, circumstances which have caused “heartache”—because there were no guiding lines for people. On what grounds are hon. members saying that we are not taking into account the grief experienced by other people? The hon. member for Parow wanted to know whether there ought not to be any sympathy for the descendants of people born of a marriage which had been wrongly concluded. It stands to reason that these matters have caused sleepless nights to Ministers and the officials dealing with race classification. But we must think of the interests of the population groups in general, of one’s own future as well as the future of the other peoples in one’s country. In such cases it is necessary at times to bear the responsibilities for steps taken so as to avoid further heartache.

This legislation is perfectly straightforward and is not as complicated as the hon. member wanted to make it out to be. When a marriage is solmenized there are, by and large, three groups of persons who have to be taken into consideration and for whom things must be made to run smoothly. In the first place, there are those who are most concerned in this matter—the couple that is getting married. This measure lays down what is expected of them so that their married life may remain as pleasant as their wedding day. There will always have to be statutory requirements; there will always have to be control on the part of the State—hence these requirements with which a couple has to comply. They cannot simply go to a marriage officer one fine day and say that he has to marry them. They must make sure in advance that their documents are in order and that they know what the contents is of the declaration they are to make. I trust that this measure will contribute to more and more marriages being solemnized in church. To me it was rather an unpleasant surprise to hear that 36 per cent of the marriages solemnized in our country to-day, are solemnized by special licence.

It can still be done before a clergyman.

Yes, fortunately many of those marriages by special licence are still being solemnized by clergyman. I trust that this measure will have a beneficial effect on the solemnization of marriages in church, and that solemnization in church will in the future continue to play that role in congregations and in the people of congregations which it traditionally played in the lives of both language groups in the past.

The second group concerned in a marriage, is the parents, the congregation and the circle of friends of the couple concerned. Here I want to say a few words about the question of raising objections to a proposed marriage. This measure provides that any objection to a marriage is to be lodged in writing. I trust that it will be made possible for people who are in a position to raise legitimate objections, to be afforded an opportunity of doing so, and that in the regulations ways and means will be found which will not make it impossible for them to do so. The hon. the Minister stated that over the past ten years no matrimonial tie had been annulled because of objections raised against it, and therefore I believe that these statutory provisions are more than adequate to guard against marriages which should not be solemnized.

The third group concerned in a marriage, is the marriage officers. I have with me here statements made by church members representative of the vast majority of church organizations in our country. Their views on this legislation were secured in writing. Apart from the United Hebrew Congregation, all the other church denominations have come out in favour of this legislation.

Is it this Bill?

In favour of this particular provision which deals with banns of marriage.

Through the Government Gazette interested parties were therefore afforded the opportunity of stating their views on this measure, and for that reason, and in conclusion, I just want to support this measure wholeheartedly and express the hope that it will be used in conjunction with the Population Registration Act, not to regiment our lives, as hon. members opposite are suggesting, but to arrange it properly. I trust that this measure will also be instrumental in adding to, rather than detracting from, the value of one of the finest and most important days in a person’s life.

Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of great pride and privilege to me to have the opportunity of addressing this House as a member after a short absence. I have sufficient love for the traditions of Parliament to deeply appreciate the opportunity of being back amongst members in this House.

And amongst friends.

And, I am sure, amongst friends, as I have been so well reminded.

I should like to deal with the views expressed by the hon. member who has just sat down. I should like to say that it is quite obvious that he is sufficiently disturbed at the contents of this Bill to have said what he did. He got very emotional about the matters dealt with in this Bill. He was particularly roused by what the hon. member for Green Point had said and, in fact, almost departed from the very sound and useful injunction of the hon. the Minister in respect of this Bill, namely to avoid making this matter a political issue at all, because this is a matter which affects the life of a community. It affects the family life of the community which is a very important aspect of our people, particularly in a country like the Republic of South Africa.

The motion moved by the hon. member for Green Point that this Bill be sent to a Select Committee follows the precedent that was established in 1960 when the principal Act was dealt with in this House. I think it might be of interest to hon. members to know that the Minister who presented the Bill went so far as to state that before the Bill was introduced in the House, it had been submitted for comment and advice to 59 Judges, including Judges of appeal, 12 of the chief magistrates of the Republic, the law societies, most of the religious denominations and organizations, the South African National Council for Marriage Guidance and Family Life and all interested Government Departments. After the matter was debated, it then went to a Select Committee. One can well appreciate why this is done. It is because of the very level to which the hon. member for Green Point raised the discussion of this Bill in reply to the hon. the Minister when he dealt with it as a matter which affects the social, religious and family life of the community. Therefore I think the hon. member for Witbank really mistranslated in words what he felt in his heart because no criticism has deliberately been levelled on the question of banns, it is a change of procedure to which the hon. member for Green Point did not refer. I should like to point out to him the fact that marriage evolved basically as part of the religious life of the God-fearing peoples of the world. It became the basis of the entire social structure of our communities as we know them. It in fact has become the cornerstone of our whole ordered social structure. We pay great attention to family life. Therefore when we deal with the question of the religious service, it is not a question for argument that there might be one or two differences in the wording which has now been submitted. The point is that by the employment of the imperative word “shall” with regard to the formula that has to be applied in asking what impediment exists and, secondly, in confirming the fact that the two people have been joined as husband and wife, it virtually reduces it to purely a recording and a civil purpose merely to comply with specific requirements of the law. It takes away from it entirely the august religious atmosphere which it should enjoy. That is the purpose of the criticism.

The criticism is that in terms of this clause the religious service is something which has been permitted as an adjunct to what is required by the law. That part of section 30 that is taken out by clause 10 of the Bill reads as follows—

The new section 30 (1) will read as follows:

30. (1) In solemnizing any marriage the marriage officer …

Then follows the part which is to be taken out.

… shall put the following questions …

Then the law requires a formula because he is not a person who is in any way associated with the religious life of the community. In other words, there has to be some civil provision in order to regularize and record marriages. By removing these words in question you have virtually, and I think you can interpret this almost as I put it to the House now, removed the whole of the religious purpose of marriage from the law.

But it does not prohibit it, surely?

I never said that it was done deliberately. I said that that was how it could be interpreted. As far as the legislation is concerned, it makes marriage purely a civil matter to be recorded properly and in which certain words have to be stated.

That is not true.

Hon. members may protest. I am not raising this issue to be critical of any deliberate act on the part of the Minister. The hon. the Minister has presented to us a clause which I as a member of this House have to interpret as people outside will interpret it. It is perfectly clear that the emphasis of the religious side for which the hon. member for Witbank pleaded with so much emotion and in such depth, has been removed. That is an important aspect in a country such as ours. That is my point of view. It has no motive or malice. I, as a deeply religious person, have this point of view as a result of my interpretation of this clause.

I want to deal particularly with the question of the change in the minimum age at which a girl can be permitted to marry with the consent of her parents and without the consent of the hon. the Minister. I personally cannot understand why this change is being made. The hon. the Minister correctly dealt with a certain amount of history which was dealt with in extenso in 1935 by the then Minister of the Interior when he presented the original provision which is now contained in the Act of 1961 which we are seeking to amend. He went into the whole matter in great detail. As the hon. the Minister correctly said, at that time only the common law applied and the age of puberty was the minimum age, namely 14 for boys and 12 for girls. At that time they had also canvassed through the League of Nations to find out what was the position among those nations who were members of the League of Nations. It was found that the majority had accepted the age of 16. In fact, it is of interest to know that only the Orange Free State, as was correctly said, differed from the rest of our country because that was the only province which did not take the common law as the basis of the minimum age.

It had in fact passed a law which made provision for an age of 18 for boys and 15, not 16, for girls. Despite the fact that the Orange Free State had made the age for girls 15, the law was amended to provide for a minimum age of 16. I want to point out that this question of ensuring that girls and boys who were too young do not marry formed virtually the entire basis of discussion on this Bill. It was described at that time as “the evil of child marriages”. Figures were quoted, showing that over a period of 21 years, namely from 1914 to 1935, there were 1,102 cases where girls under 16 had contracted marriages. In the early years of that period, from 1914 to 1917 for example the average number per annum was 26. Thereafter the figures rose to 75 per annum. The Minister said that the numbers, in relation to the total population, were not very high, but that it was nevertheless an evil which, from a social and economic point of view, was of importance, and had to be eradicated.

The 1961 Bill was sent to a Select Committee, and even then a tremendous array of knowledgable persons such as Judges, councils for marriage guidance, etc., did not find it necessary to change the minimum age. They accepted it and it is in fact of interest to know that it actually formed part of the discussion. That is the interesting thing. It was not merely bypassed as something that should be left in the law and something that did not merit consideration or criticism. It was actually dealt with. In this connection I should like to quote from Hansard (Vol. 104, Col. 5091) —

Those were the words of the then Minister of the Interior, and he went on to deal with that particular issue. What I am trying to emphasize, Sir, is the fact that in 1961, when the entire Act, which had been passed 25 years earlier, could have been revised, this was not done. After all, many things had happened in the world during that time. A war had taken place. The whole structure of society had changed. The conservative strength of family life had also undergone considerable changes. There was a certain amount of creaking in the foundations of this life, and splitting as well. There therefore was an opportunity in 1961 for this Select Committee to revise the whole Act. They were, of course, supported by all the luminaries to whom I have referred. In the discussions in Parliament specific reference was made to this particular clause. It was therefore not merely bypassed.

Therefore one wonders why the Minister now presents this change to the House, without even, as was correctly pointed out, having called for comments from the numerous bodies which have been established to consider such matters, bodies which are to-day dealing with a society which is sick. These bodies are dealing with a society of teenagers who are looking for guidance and who cannot find their feet in this fast changing jet age in which we live. We have numerous problems facing teenagers. Indeed, there are so many that one wonders why an additional problem should have been introduced. Quite frankly, Sir, when I read this particular change, I was nonplussed. I am sure that many people in our country are nonplussed. I am sure that many mothers will be very concerned when they hear more about this particular clause. How many families are going to be deeply disturbed? The hon. member for Witbank, who is not in the House at the moment, refrained from dealing with this clause. I do not know why he did so. His Minister enjoined him to deal with this matter on a non-political basis. He became very wound up about a number of factors concerning banns, which no one has overemphasized during the course of this discussion. [Interjection.] I am very sincere in this regard. I am making no particular point, except to wonder why a man who has such a deeply religious outlook, and who has obviously played a part in his community, has missed this particular aspect.

I say to the hon. the Minister from my heart that this aspect should either be withdrawn, or otherwise, in terms of the amendment, the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee so that we can obtain the views of experts. I say that it is not sufficient to tell the House that the grounds of time, personnel, money and the numerous applications with which his Department and the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions has to deal, should be the grounds upon which this extraordinary change in our law should be made. I ask the Minister to give us figures in regard to the Western world to-day, where child marriages have been avoided over the years by legislation, which may show that the majority have changed to the age of 15. I should like to have those figures produced to the House to satisfy the country that it is so.

I am also not satisfied that we, the people of South Africa, should necessarily follow slavishly that particular point of view. I am not satisfied that the preponderance of thinking amongst Western peoples supports this measure. One must remember that UNO includes a number of Asiatic and African countries. Other countries of the world, too, are members, and we know the developments which have taken place in marriage laws in those countries. In fact, it might not even be surprising to find that there is a preponderance of thinking which supports this move, but not on the part of the Western countries, with whose form of culture and civilization we have a very strong and intimate affinity. I therefore say that the reasons which the hon. the Minister has given are not sound at all.

Let me go further and quote a rather interesting passage from a case which took place in 1961 in our Cape law courts. This was a case which dealt with the validity of a marriage in which a girl under 16 had got married. Certain other issues, which flowed from the marriage, arose, and the matter was taken to court. The court held that, whatever the circumstances relating to the time of marriage, the consent of the parents, etc., the very fact that the Minister had not granted his permission. made that marriage an invalid one. The marriage was therefore null and void. I should like to quote what the learned Judge said. He drew attention to certain other cases both in England and here, and went on to say—

Here the Judge interpolates: “(As was the position in Roman Dutch Law) ”. He goes on to quote—

Then he goes on to say—

Sir, my appeal to the hon. the Minister is a very simple one. I say that one may make changes in technical provisions with regard to the orderly life of a community. One may differ on the question whether they are wise or otherwise; one may differ as to the method of change, or one may oppose them entirely; one may be over-conservative but, Sir, when you deal with the basic structure of family life which, after all, is the basis of our Western civilization, then it merits very much more consideration than just the cold facts of a considerable number of applications, of shortage of personnel, of money that has to be spent, and that there is a lot of work to be done by various departments. I say that you cannot reduce this vital factor in our lives to that level. Sir, I am sure that the hon. the Minister did not do this with any sense of deliberation; I know him too well and I know that he pays high regard to the factors that I have mentioned here, but it is possible—and it very often occurs—that the Department may become a little over-active in these various matters. We are living, as I have said earlier, in a strangely permissive society where teenagers have tremendous problems, and probably the Minister does not fully appreciate the effect of this change upon family life. In supporting the hon. member for Green Point, I therefore appeal to him on a completely non-political, unbiased basis, to take this Bill back to a Select Committee so that we can get the viewpoints of the public, of the organizations which exist for dealing with these matters and of the churches, so that we can all come back to this House and deal with this Bill with our conscience clear, our souls cleansed and our hearts at one in making a change which in my opinion must have a very severe and a very profound effect upon the life of our community.

The hon. member for Jeppes made mention of the fact that he was back after a short absence, but having listened to him and also having watched the Opposition’s display during the past two weeks, it would appear to me as if the hon. member merely interrupted his short absence in order to come and fetch his other colleagues to join him in his future absence, after the next election.

The chief argument of the hon. member, who accused the hon. member for Witbank of being very emotional, while he himself was just as emotional as the hon. member for Wit-bank, if not more so, was that this measure was no depriving marriage of its religious character. But, Sir, the truth is, in fact, to the contrary. The pleas of newspapers, sociologists and all those people are specifically to the effect that the Bill is justified and that the authorities should not interfere too much in marriages. I should like to refer you briefly to what Dr. C. J. Alant, a senior lecturer in sociology at the University of South Africa said, according to Dagbreek of 26th July (translation) —

Sir, even the churchmen are not clear on this matter. They have not yet adopted a very strong standpoint, as the Opposition claims they have. It is stated as follows in the Argus of 25th July—

Sir, hon. members on that side were altogether right in saying that this Bill touched upon measures and upon matters of an intimate nature. If one thinks of this Bill one’s first impression is that one is here moving in the innermost domestic and family circles. The privacy of the subject of this Bill is immediately felt when one reads its provisions, and in addition the marriage tie is probably one of the most important cornerstones of our society, of a nation and of the people of that country. It defines one’s future to a very large extent, if not the largest extent; it tells one where one’s future status is to lie; where one is going to feel at home; it defines the continuation of one’s people; it defines one’s status in the community in which one moves, and for that reason the marriage tie is probably one of the most important ties existing to-day. The major portion of our laws of marriage we find, of course, in common law. The common law has, for a very long time, left it to the people and the church to define the laws of marriage. The legislators themselves never interfered much with marriages and the laws relating to it. The legislators only had an interest in the results of the marriage, the results of the children and the results in respect of property. This was the legislator’s chief interest in marriages. Sir, one of our most important writers to-day on marriages and the relationships between husband and wife, Professor H. A. Hahlo, the author of the book “South African Law of Husband and Wife”, presents the history of marriage in the third edition as follows. He says that up to approximately the eleventh century marriage and everything relating to it were left to the private individual; the people themselves made arrangements among themselves; it was a domestic matter and was to be arranged and handled accordingly. From the eleventh to the sixteenth centuries, he says, everything in connection with marriage was left to the church. The church had its own ordinances; it put its own stamp on marriage and defined how the members of its congregations and the people should handle a marriage and how they should live in the marital state. After the sixteenth century the legislature intervened and took marriage under its wing, but only in most of the countries where the reformational religions predominated. Professor Hahlo maintains that it is difficult to predict the direction which marriage and the laws in connection with marriage will take in the future. According to him it is not impossible—he describes it as a very great possibility—that marriage is once more going to swing towards the individual, and that the authorities are going to take an increasingly smaller part in the laws of marriage. Sir, it is also interesting to examine the works of a few of our old writers in connection with marriage, and to read their definitions of marriage. We thus find the definition of Hugo de Groot, probably one of the greatest writers on Roman-Dutch Law; he states (translation) —

With this definition in mind, one asks oneself: What is the position in common law and how has society accepted and interpreted this? According to Roman Law, and also according to Roman-Dutch Law, which is our law and from which we drew our entire legal system, the puberty ages for children were determined at 14 years for boys and 12 years for girls. The age of 14 years for boys was also, of course, the age at which boys could take up arms, could obtain the vote and could engage in war. This was the age of puberty, and this age was, according to Roman-Dutch Law, also subsequently adopted by the majority of Western countries. They also regarded it as the earliest age at which a couple could enter into marriage—14 years for boys and 12 years for girls. The Marriage Act, No. 8 of 1935, brought about a change by setting the age for boys at 18 years and that for girls at 16 years. But, Sir, when a marriage must be contracted, the most important question is who desires it. The desire to contract a marriage rests with the mature man and woman themselves and with no one else, but if the couple are still minors, it is in the first place compulsory for both the parents of that couple, or if there are no parents, then their guardians, to get permission for the contracting of that marriage. When there is only one parent, that parent’s permission is sufficient, and if there are no longer any parents at all, then application can be made to the Supreme Court for permission for that couple to get married. If the parents were perhaps to refuse to give their permission, then application could be made to a Judge, who could then give permission. One asks oneself: What are the provisions of section 26 of the Marriage Act of 1961? This Act provides that the Minister’s permission is necessary when minors under the age of 18 years, in the case of boys, and 16 years, in the case of girls (according to the present Act), want to enter into marriage. But if the Judge or the courts have given permission—and this must be very clearly borne in mind—the Minister’s permission is no longer necessary. A Judge or the courts, of course, only give permission when there are no longer any parents or guardians, and the Judge or the courts can give permission even though the children are under the ages of 18 and 16 years. In bearing all these arguments in mind —and I now more specifically want to dwell on the question of girls under the age of 15 who may now get married—in thinking of the history of the laws of marriage, as I have sketched them here briefly, and in thinking of the private nature of the whole matter, one asks oneself: Who is best able and best equipped to give permission for a boy under the age of 18 years, and a girl under the age of 15 years (16 years under the present Act) to be able to get married? Are the parents who know those children, or perhaps a Judge, or the courts, or the Minister in the best position to give that permission? In analysing the position under the present Act, we find that very few girls under the age of 16 applied for the necessary permission, as the hon. the Minister also said in his Second Reading speech. There are very few, and one may now accept that the applications from girls under 15 years of age that are going to be submitted will be even fewer than the applications thus-far received. Added to that is the fact that the overall majority of these requests come from girls who have landed in trouble, who are perhaps pregnant and must now embark upon marriage. And one can hardly imagine that permission being denied these girls. One should perhaps encourage them to get married for very good and obvious reasons. Disregarding this number as well, there remain very few cases where the Minister will in any case have to give his permission in the long run. In most of these cases the girls would shortly reach the age of 16 years and could then get married anyway, and one should not lose sight of that aspect either. Where the parents grant their permission, the Minister would not easily refuse his either, since the Minister would prefer girls to get married under those circumstances. There I believe the Minister would give his permission. Several court cases have also decided that the choice should be left to the parents. I am thinking, for example, of a case such as Paton v. Paton, a 1929 Transvaal case, where the Judge made it very clear that the courts would not very easily interfere in the desires of the parents when they apply for such permission. But suppose the girl is under 16 years of age and the parents refuse permission, an application could surely be made to the courts or to a Judge for permission for the girl to get married. There would thus in the long run be very few cases which would be laid before the Minister, and very few cases which he would eventually dismiss and where he would refuse them the right to get married.

But I said there were also other good reasons why a person should give the necessary permission to these girls. In the first place I am thinking, for example, of the disgrace to that family in which a girl is perhaps pregnant, under the age of 15 or 16 years and wanting to get married, but permission is refused. I am thinking of the shame that is going to cling to her and her child for the rest of their lives. Very few people realize the remorse of those young girls, their inner struggle and the injury done to their characters by that occurrence. When I was practising as an attorney I had a few of these cases where people approached me to apply for the necessary permission on their behalf. In one case, which I still remember very well, the couple obtained the necessary permission and got married. A few years afterwards I again heard of them by chance, and then things were still going very well for them. How things are to-day I do not know, but at that stage things were still going well. In another case which I remember, the Minister gave his permission, but then something else happened and they never got married. I suppose that hon. members of the Opposition, and many other gentlemen, would be able to come forward with cases they know of where things turned out well, and perhaps also where things did not turn out as well. But to claim that prospective permission would give rise to a greater number of divorces is not correct. I do not believe that we can depend on that assertion, for the simple reason that the number of cases of permission being granted would be very few in relation to the number of marriages taking place. Whether it would in any way disturb the balance of divorces is highly doubtful. One also bears in mind that the divorce figure in South Africa to-day is already alarmingly high. Approximately one out of every three marriages contracted in the Republic to-day ends in the divorce court in the long run. I simply cannot see that the granting of this prospective permission could in any way disturb this balance. On the contrary, the good results obtained with the granting of this permission could compensate to a much better extent for the disadvantages which would result from this permission being withheld.

But one also thinks of another good reason. One thinks, for example, of that child who is not born of a lawful marriage, and of the fact that he must eventually go to meet the future with a blot on his name, that he in fact has no name. One would like to make that child’s future easier for him, so that he may enter those future years in the knowledge that he was born of a lawful marriage and so that no stigma will attach to him in the future. We are all probably in favour of the moral standards of our people being kept high. It is also highly doubtful whether this permission, which is now to be granted at the age of 15 years, is in any way going to be detrimental to those moral standards we should like to maintain.

There were also other arguments against the marriage of a girl of 15 years, i.e. that such a girl would not be in a position to bring her child up properly. To a certain extent one would concede that such a girl, with her motherly instinct, could perhaps bring that child up properly, but the question is always whether that girl could give the child the necessary education. These girls of 15 and 16 years of age are more receptive to help and to sensible advice from parents, friends and people who know more than they do, and they would be more inclined to take advice from those people so that they could more easily bridge those few years when they are still inexperienced. There was also an argument about these marriages at 15 years of age could perhaps promote larger families. This is, of course, to be welcomed, and one does not see any disadvantage in that. One sees the encouragement for larger white families in the Republic as a good thing. It is not that one wants to encourage girls of 15 to go and get married now; on the contrary, one would certainly continue to discourage these girls as far as possible. But I also believe that 15-year-olds would probably not like to get married, but most of them unfortunately find themselves in a position where they must get married. Then one also thinks of what the hon. the Minister said about the Department’s investigations when an application is received from a 16-year-old girl. It takes about three months before that investigation is completed, and a great deal of expense and manpower is involved. If this could be eliminated to a certain extent it would be of great help.

As far as this aspect is concerned, I want to conclude by emphasizing once more that it is, in the first place, certainly the parents’ responsibility to give permission for their children to get married or not, and that this should not be left to the Minister or to the courts. The parents are certainly the people who must carry the greatest responsibility in this respect. Marriage is and remains a private matter; it is a family matter, a domestic matter. There are even some of the Opposition newspapers which say that it should perhaps be left to parental choice. I quote from the Cape Times of Monday, 27th July—

Bill will, it is to be hoped, make it quite clear that the Government does not mean to encourage earlier marriages.

Then the Cape Times, as well as the Argus goes on to say that it should be left to the parents themselves to decide. Others adopt a wait-and-see attitude as far as this Bill is concerned, but they do add in conclusion that they think that it nevertheless remains the parents’ responsibility, and that the authorities should not interfere too much as far as the contracting of marriages is concerned.

I want to conclude by saying that this Bill is certainly in the spirit of the times, and a reflection of circumstances. The time has come, as the Minister also said, for us to make the necessary adjustments as far as our laws of marriage are concerned, and for us to revise this question of 15-year-olds and, as the hon. member for Witbank said, the question of banns.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus has dealt with this Bill mainly from the legal point of view and has also disclosed certain consequences which he thinks might arise from the passing of this legislation, but he did not indicate any argument against the amendment moved by this side of the House that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee before second reading for further investigation. I think that, if anything, the hon. member indicated the need for this measure to have far greater investigation than merely discussing it in this House, and that a Select Committee of this House should have the opportunity of hearing evidence from various persons and responsible organizations who are directly affected by the consequences of this Bill now before this House. I think of the sociologists, some of whom have indicated concern that the passing of this Bill is not in the interests of our young people. In judging any legislation like this, the criterion should always be whether it is in the interest of the child. At this stage of the debate we have not yet had any indication from hon. members opposite, and certainly not from the hon. the Minister, that this particular Bill is in the interest of the child. I refer now to clause 9 of the Bill. I think this is of paramount importance and that a Select Committee of this House should have the opportunity of hearing evidence from sociologists and from child welfare organizations. I am quite sure that the National Council for Child Welfare has not yet had an opportunity of fully discussing the implications of this Bill as it affects their particular field of work. There are also the various church denominations. There are many churches who have expressed concern about the provisions of clause 9. as well as doubting the wisdom of no longer making it mandatory for the churches to insist on the calling of banns, etc. In addition, there are the marriage guidance counsellors who are facing an enormous problem in South Africa at present with the tremendous increase in the divorce rate, particularly amongst the Whites.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus mentioned the question of divorce, but seemed to pass it over as being a matter of no great consequence, because he said the numbers are not really so great after all compared with the number of marriages contracted. I should, however, like to remind the hon. member that this Government has appointed a commission of inquiry to investigate this very real problem in regard to the high divorce rate. Here, too, I believe the marriage counsellors would be able to give invaluable evidence to a Select Committee considering a Bill of this nature.

The aspects concerning the calling of banns, etc., have been dealt with by the hon. member for Green Point, as well as a number of other matters. I intend confining myself mainly to the principle involved in clause 9 of the Bill. which alters the age of the girl only where permission is required from the Minister.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned for lunch I was dealing with clause 9 of the Bill which aims at reducing the age of girls who shall be capable of marriage without the consent of the Minister to 15 years. I think in considering the matter and taking into account what the hon. the Minister has said, it seems extremely difficult to find justification for bringing about this proposed amendment. The hon. the Minister referred to the question of administration difficulties and of costs. This appeared to be the main yardstick why he had decided to amend this particular section. If it is to be judged merely on account of the amount of administrative work and costs involved, surely, at a later stage if there is a large number of applications for permission to marry in respect of girls under the age of 15, then the hon. the Minister, applying the same argument, will have to come back to this House to ask for a further reduction in the age to, say, 14 years. I feel that this is not a justifiable argument to bring about a change of this nature. The hon. the Minister also mentioned the question of climatic conditions in South Africa and the earlier physical maturity amongst young people. But it seems apparent that in terms of this amendment, only the girls have made that physical improvement, that is to say, earlier maturity, as the age for boys is being left unaltered at 18.

I believe that many people outside who are particularly interested in this amending legislation will be looking to the Minister to give greater justification than the justification that he has given when he introduced this particular measure. As I said earlier, the yardstick must surely be based on what is in the best interests of the community as a whole including the child. In terms of other legislation passed by this House various ages have been determined whereby a child requires protection. I refer particularly to the Children’s Act of 1960 which was an amended Act based on the 1937 Act. This Act is regarded not only in South Africa, but in other parts of the world as a children’s charter. In terms of that Act 18 years is determined as the age where a child is deemed to be a child and requires protection in terms of legislation. However, our legislation in the past has provided that girls of under 16 had to obtain the consent of the Minister of the Interior to marry, whereas that of boys was 18 years. This coincides with the Children’s Act. In looking for reasons as to why this should not be proceeded with, I believe that there are many sociologists, child welfare workers and marriage guidance councillors who are opposed to this measure in principle. Many of them have not yet had an opportunity of submitting representations to the hon. the Minister although the Bill was published in the Government Gazette some two or three weeks ago. It is for this reason that we on this side of the House believe that a Select Committee would be able to take valuable evidence from these people who are intimately associated with this particular problem and aspect of the Marriage Act.

Now, Sir, when we look at existing legislation, we find that the Children’s Act provides for protection to those under the age of 18. We also find that in terms of various ordinances the compulsory school-leaving age is fixed at 16 years unless a child has passed Std. 8 or has special permission to leave school.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has consulted with the Minister of National Education in this regard because as there is a compulsory school-leaving age, surely it is going to create extreme difficulties if permission to marry is granted to 15-year-olds. Hon. members opposite might wonder why this is an important point, but I have just mentioned that the Children’s Act provides protection for children. It is interesting to note that in terms of this Act a child can be declared to be in need of care if that child is a habitual truant. Unless this married woman of 15 has permission to leave school, in terms of the Children’s Act she can be subject to an investigation as a habitual truant if she is not attending school. I am trying to indicate that at the present time certain protection is afforded to these young people by legislation. One aspect of this protection is that of school-going age. Having discussed this matter with educationists and people who are interested in education I have found that many have the view that a girl of 16 in Std. IX is often far more mature than a girl of 15 in St. VII or Std. VIII. There is therefore the question of the effect of this legislation on existing legislation already passed by this House or by a Provincial Council.

Furthermore the welfare of the person concerned is of prime importance. Here I refer to child welfare organizations and child welfare agencies who deal with this problem in many instances and of course carry out investigations where such matters require investigation. Such matters are often referred to them by the Department of Social Welfare. Here the view of many social workers is that there are a number of cases in respect of which it is necessary for them to obtain permission. The young girl is pregnant and it has become necessary for her to marry. It is, however, also the view of many social workers at the present time that it is not always necessarily the right course to adopt to encourage a person to marry if that is not going to be a satisfactory marriage. In other words, pregnancy is no longer regarded as a valid reason for a young person to be forced into marriage. The matter must be dealt with after thorough investigation and decided upon by those persons who are qualified to make certain recommendations in respect of this particular aspect of the work. This has been the case in the past as far as girls who have attained the age of 16 years are concerned. In terms of this legislation the age is to be reduced to 15 years. I fail to see any valid reason why the age should be reduced by one year. There are many persons falling into this category who could benefit by such an investigation being carried out on a professional basis. This measure will limit this particular group by lowering the age by one year.

This also has an effect on other legislation in terms of which young persons are protected. I refer to legislation which was passed by this House only last year, namely the Immorality Amendment Act, Act No. 57 of 1969. Section 1 of that Act made it an offence for any sexual act to be committed with a girl under the age of 16. This has been embodied in legislation passed by this House as recently as 1969. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister has taken into consideration the various effects that this Bill has in this connection. Girls under the age of 16 are at present protected in terms of that legislation and it is indeed an offence for a sexual act to be committed with a girl under 16 years of age.

I come now to the question of the welfare of the child. This is indeed of paramount importance in dealing with legislation of this nature. One must be guided by the experience of persons connected with child welfare. If one looks at reports one is depressed to see the large number of young marriages that end in failure. The legislation before us will reduce the age at which a girl can marry and this could mean a larger number of girls marrying at that younger age.

The hon. the Minister is undoubtedly aware of the consequences of many of these young marriages. If not, he could certainly get a report from the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions which would indicate to him the seriousness of this matter. These welfare agencies are continually up against difficulties concerning the break up of marriages, separation and desertion. In discussing this with a child welfare worker only a few days ago, he said to me that a large number of these broken marriages stem from marriages which have been contracted at a very young age. After a short while it is found that these persons are emotionally and financially unable to cope with the responsibilities of marriage and in many cases parenthood. Under these circumstances, one or the other of-the partners desert and then the matter is referred to the welfare agencies to deal with, if there are children involved. Many of these cases do involve children.

I believe that our present position where the age when a person can get married without the permission of the Minister of the Interior, is restricted to 16 years, is a deterrent to many of these young people who have been anticipating marriage at a very young age. Although the Government says that it is not necessarily encouraging the younger marriages, they would certainly open the door to these young marriages by means of this legislation. Many of these marriages as I have said end in disaster.

It is unfortunate that we in South Africa today have this particularly high divorce rate. A commission has been appointed by the hon. the Minister for Social Welfare and Pensions and they are investigating this very problem. Surely, there would be very good reason for the hon. the Minister of the Interior not to proceed with this particular legislation without having had the benefit of studying that report which should be forthcoming in the not too distant future. Surely, there is no haste in placing this legislation on the Statute Book without any further consideration and deliberation. If we look at this question of divorce, we can see it is one which brought about a rather serious situation in South Africa. The latest available figures, the figures for 1969, show that 7,373 divorces took place among the Whites only in this period. Compared with previous figures, namely those of 1968, we see that the figures was 6,251. In 1967 the figure was 6,112. This represents a more than 20 per cent increase in the number of divorces which took place among the White group during the past two years. At this moment the Commission is considering this question of divorce, which has had a disastrous effect on the family life of many of the White inhabitants of the Republic. Indeed, where we have had the benefit of a report, known as the Piek Commission which reported to this House some years ago, we see that it indicated the high divorce rate amongst the Whites and the number of children who are in need of care and placed in institutions because of this specific reason.

I refer to this Piek Commission report, because I believe it does assist us in gauging whether this particular legislation which is before us is necessary and whether it should not be dealt with by a select committee which can investigate further various aspects. In the Piek Commission report it is shown that children who are committed to institutions as far as the Whites are concerned, exceed 5,000 in number. Of the 5,000 children, 82 per cent have parents and many of these cases are the results of divorce, separation or parents living in discord. I believe that this legislation which is before us, could adversely affect the situation since girls will now be able to marry at a younger age, a year younger, without having to get the permission of the Minister of the Interior. I believe that no case has been made to justify this amendment without consideration of all the agencies and all the persons involved who will be able to give an unbiased report and evidence to a select committee, so that the committee can decide whether the principle should be adopted or not.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that as far as his side is concerned there should be a free vote when this matter comes up in the Committee Stage. I do hope that hon. members opposite will take advantage of such a free vote to speak in the interests of the young people of South Africa so as to see that legislation is passed which is not merely judged by the yardstick of the administration, the cost involved and the time involved, but by the main criterion, whether it is in the interests of the young people and in the interests of the community as a whole to proceed with this legislation. We on this side of the House believe that it is necessary to have further in vestigation and deliberation, and that is why I have pleasure in supporting the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Green Point.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the school of thought of the hon. members of the Opposition, it is striking that the people who are always very anxious when the Minister of a particular department has to obtain a decisive say in a matter, because it is very dangerous, are pleading to-day for the Minister to retain his powers. I am surprised that they are not anxious that he would perhaps misuse his powers. I want to say that hon. friends, and the hon. member for Umbilo who has just resumed his seat, place the emphasis on the wrong spot. If the emphasis was on the protection of our children and minors, then I would have fully agreed with him, but if he argues that the lowering of the age at which the Minister must give permission from 16 to 15 means in practice the exposure of a certain number of our young people to the hard facts of life and the wolves, I think he is exaggerating altogether.

Various speakers emphasized the fact that marriage in our society is a predominantly religious ceremony, that this lends a particular dignity to the ceremony and that it is universally regarded by our people as an important occasion in any person’s life. I should like to underline this, but I should not like to elaborate further, because I do not consider it necessary. I want to make use of the occasion to point out that although marriage is treated by us, and respected, as a religious institution with a strong religious element, we should also remember that marriage is also a legal institution. There is almost no social contract which is put to the test to such an extent as is the marriage contract, because it can affect one’s person, one’s property and one’s descendants far into the future. I therefore differ from those people who think that the marriage ceremony should go back to the arbitrary control of private individuals or bodies. Specifically in the light of this important fact, it is surely necessary for the State, which is concerned with the interests of its citizens, to give the closest supervision to the legality of marriage. We simply cannot ignore this. As a result of the increased complexity of our society, it has become necessary for the State to give strict supervision to the marriage contract, the marriage, its consequences and its legality. This is particularly necessary because, as a result of present-day circumstances, that contract is put to the test from time to time more than any other. I should like to emphasize this point very strongly.

I now want to come to a point which was underlined by the hon. member for Green Point, i.e. the necessity for identity documents. He has a very serious objection to that. He said that there were certain marriages which could have been contracted, but which would now be prevented. He says that we are thereby now interfering in the private lives of people, etc. When we come to the marriage contract we simply cannot ignore certain facts; least of all in our country, where we have such a heterogeneous population, and where we have particular laws regulating human relationships and group relationships. In that connection our identity card, or the future identity document, is a very important document, which also has an important role in the legality of a particular marriage. Therefore, while under present circumstances it is possible for a marriage to be concluded without an identity card being produced, as could happen in certain cases, it is wrong to argue to-day that we are interfering in the private lives or choices of certain individuals. Take the example of someone classified as white and someone classified as Coloured. This would, in fact, mean that the children born of that marriage would be classified as Coloured, as a result of that person’s classification; here we have then concluded a contract, allowed a marriage to take place, in the knowledge that we have sent a whole progeny along the road to classification as Coloureds. I say that it is then better for us to ask the relevant persons to produce their identity documents, for us to make sure that that marriage will in consequence be legal, and that that marriage, and the offspring born of it, will not suffer as a result of other laws and regulations of society. I cannot see how the hon. member for Green Point can now continue with that argument and say, “Let us overlook these matters”, and then we come along to-morrow or the day after with other laws and other provisions which would affect those people most deeply and most painfully. I cannot but decide that the hon. friend is opposed in principle to population grouping and race classification. Therefore he now actually wants to attack that Act here from another angle and try to cancel it out. I think we must be consistent. There are facts we must accept, i.e. that in South Africa we have certain population relationships, population classifications and race groups, and that we must lead our population along those lanes, otherwise there are many provisions which would affect them detrimentally at a later stage, and the peaceful and ordered composition of our society would be threatened.

I now come to another point, which was also advanced by the hon. member for Umbilo, in connection with the lowering of the age at which ministerial approval is necessary. He tried to make out that we wanted to introduce here a total lowering of the marriage age. That is not what it means. It actually means that on the basis of 35 years of experience and the statistics collected, there are cases from time to time (about 200 per year) in the 15 to 16 year age group where ministerial permission for a marriage must be obtained as a result of the girl being under the age of 16. In almost all those cases the parents give their permission for that marriage, and the Minister is expected to investigate the matter, one might almost say to waste his manpower resources on an investigation which would, in the majority of cases, eventually lead to permission for that marriage. Life is complicated, circumstances are very complicated, and it is very difficult, where people have disposed themselves towards concluding a marriage and where parents are in favour of this, to draw a line through this from the ministerial side.

Therefore I want hon. members just to give attention for a moment to the figures which we do, in fact, have at our disposal for the years 1962 to 1969. The applications received for girls under 16 years of age total 1,325 for the eight year period. Of those cases, 1,038 were between the ages of 15 and 16, 261 between 14 and 15, 27 between 13 and 14, and two between 12 and 13. The number of cases between 15 and 16 years which were refused was a mere 133 (12.8 per cent), between 14 and 15, 58 (22 per cent), between 13 and 14, 24 (37 per cent), and one out of the two cases between 12 and 13. This indicates to us that in that particular group the overall majority of cases lies within the 15 to 16 year age group. Permission is granted in the majority of cases, and it is found that circumstances are such that the Minister can give his permission. This entails such a lot of work for the Department, particularly in a period when there is such a manpower shortage, that it is necessary for us now, after 35 years, since the change was made from 14 and 12, to review the matter once more. Circumstances are clear to us. We now have 35 years’ experience and statistics, and we see that here there is a group between 15 and 16 years of age in respect of which it is not necessary for the Minister to investigate all the cases. The girls are mature. They want to get married and their parents have given their permission. They are mature people. Therefore ministerial permission can be eliminated here. We are not saying that children should now get married a year earlier. Parental supervision will continue. From the way the hon. member for Wynberg is scribbling, I can see that she is still going to speak. I want to tell her that we are not taking away parental supervision. At times they are sticklers for parental choice. She knows it. The parents will still give advice and guidance. We wish they would give more guidance and stronger guidance. That is actually our problem. I say it will continue. In other words, our society is not abolishing an existing provision; not at all. Society will still lend a guiding hand, exercise censure and apply sanctions. The parents will play a very important role. We are merely implying, and that is what the hon. the Minister and his Department ask that in the light of 35 years’ experience it is clear to us that in South Africa in general the overall majority of girls between the ages of 15 and 16. who are contemplating marriage, can get that permission. From the answers obtained and the decisions taken in the past, it is clear that the younger they are the less desirable it is that they should marry. We know that years ago our people married at a young age. That was legal. I remember such families in the neighbourhood where I grew up: honest, good people. It was always said that Aunt May was just 13 years older than Aunt Fay. There was nothing wrong with that. It was a fine family. Those people live right here in our midst. In other words, there are circumstances under which, even at that age, a marriage could run its normal course without anyone having anything to say about it. As far as the 15 and 16 year olds are concerned, we are dealing, in the majority of cases, with girls who have reached maturity, who can hold their own and who can enter into marriage on the basis of parental permission, because this is still always required. I should like to emphasize that we are not lowering the marital age. In the case of 15 year old girls we are merely arranging that it shall no longer be necessary for the hon. the Minister to order an entire investigation by his Department in order to give permission. The parents will still have to give permission and they will still retain supervision before that marriage can be legalized.

There was also an objection to the inclusion of a prescribed formula as laid down here in clause 10. It is clear, from what the hon. member for Green Point quoted, that there are great similarities between the Protestant and Reformed Church marriage formulae in respect of their essential content. I want to come back to the point I made at the beginning, i.e. that we must take into account that in marriage we are dealing with a momentous contract, for which the State must eventually take responsibility, and which it cannot merely wash its hands of in innocence and say that it has no part in that. Added to this we still have the fact that there is a continual increase in denominations claiming their right to perform marriages. We do not begrudge them that, but they are not all old-established churches such as The Church of the Province, the Dutch Reformed Church, etc. These churches have fixed customs extending over centuries. However, it does happen that a church establishes itself to-day and then wants to solemnize marriages next Saturday, or even to-morrow. They frequently want to do so in a very high-handed way, at their own direction and as they think fit. Frequently it is also done by untrained and unqualified people. I say this without wanting to cast reflection on their religious authenticity. They are frequently people who are not really equal to the task of handling such a matter and of supervising the marriage contract, which is such a very important contract. That is why it is so important for the hon. the Minister to insert that specific formula into this Bill, and why marriage officers, who have the freedom to draw up a fine religious formula, shall at least ensure that this is contained in it. People will then not be able to come along afterwards and say “Yes, but I gave no answer to that. That was not a part of my marriage contract.” This is a very important aspect and I want to ask the hon. member for Wynberg to give specific attention to this when she speaks about this matter. What does she want us and the hon. the Minister to do if he finds particular churches drawing up a formula which does not have a legal basis and which does not ensure that those contractual obligations can be carried out properly in terms of the Act?

I therefore want to make it very clear that here the State or the hon. the Minister and his Department are really calling for a minimal requirement. The various churches are now only being asked to draw up their marriage formula in such a way that it shall also contain the provisions of this Bill; they may further draw it up as they see fit. There is thus still full scope for the religious element. The hon. member for Jeppes gave a very distorted impression of it here. I am certain that the religious character of the marriage ceremony will in no way be lost because of the inclusion of this particular formula. We do not now, in the marriage ceremony, merely have a repetition of a particular legal regulation of the hon. the Minister and his Department. On the contrary, I want to give the assurance that there will be few churches who will find it necessary to re-write their marriage formula. I foresee that where a formula is a little different, a marriage officer will simply include that small part. Whether he will do so as a subsection of three questions (a), (b) and (c), it being the (c) section, or however he may do it, is a question of taste. It will, however, entail no breakdown or disruption of the marriage formula or the marriage ceremony. I should like to ask hon. members not to be carried away by certain considerations, as though we are now to introduce an irresponsible lowering of the marital age. This is not so. Neither is a fragmentation of the strong religious element of marriage and its consummation taking place. The hon. the Minister and his Department are only ensuring that marriage will be properly arranged and legalized, in the light of modern circumstances and the demands of the times, with our complicated society, and specifically in the light of the fact that so many divorces take place.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Piketberg said that whatever happens, I should not fail to deal with the question of the form of marriage which is set out in this Bill. I would like to tell the hon. member that, whereas he is an ex-parson and my father was a parson, if the form of marriage set out in this Bill is satisfactory to the leaders of the different churches, I am not concerned to deal with it here. I am happy to leave it to the parsons. The hon. member made the point that marriage is the biggest test of stability in our social lives and on that basis he justified the State’s intrusion into these matters in order to help maintain that stability. But how much stability can we expect from children of 15 years in the first place and 18 years in the second, I would like to know. The hon. member for Piketberg played down the figures and he said that in the last eight years there were 1,325 of these cases of people asking the hon. the Minister permission to marry under the age of 18. If there were so few cases in the last eight years, why alter the law at all?

It seems to me highly suitable that I should be the last speaker in this debate. It has been most interesting listening to it. It seems to me that apart from some of the hon. members on this side who have been largely academic in their approach, hon. members opposite had an awful job trying to justify clause 9 and have not succeeded very well. We have heard all about marriage customs in the Middle Ages going right back to the eleventh century and also of child marriage customs in Asia and Africa. Of course these were not real marriages at all. The hon. the Minister also attempted to justify clause 9 by quoting what he considers to be the small number of cases involved. All this Bill is doing by reducing the age to 15 years is to avoid the complications of a serious sociological problem by condoning the outcome.

The hon. the Minister, and also the hon. member for Piketberg, laid much stress on the fact that written permission from the parents is always requested and, in fact, always obtained. He then went on to talk about the social welfare investigations into these matters and said that it takes much time and that everybody becomes very impatient because it can take up to three months as a rule to investigate these cases. Can you believe that the hon. the Minister and other hon. members here can seriously argue that it saves money, manpower and time to reduce the marriage age to 15 years when you are dealing with a very deep-seated sociological problem here in South Africa? This is such a typically male institution. The saving of money, manpower or time should not in any way be allowed to affect the way in which we deal with this problem. The hon. the Minister even went so far, and I do not know of an occasion where it has ever been done with approval before, to quote that the United Nations has said that they approve of the age of 15 years as being sufficient when marrying. He also said that this provision was contained in the 1935 Act as well. Do we have to follow the lead of the United Nations in dealing with our own problems in this field? I have listened very hard and have heard no valid arguments in support of this clause from the other side of the House. The hon. the Minister says that we will have a free vote on this clause. The very fact that he has decided that means that a good many objections have already been put before him on this clause. The hon. the Minister said as much in his Second Reading speech.

If we take marriage seriously, and heaven knows we have to, because it is a sort of life sentence for many of us, it seems a little hard to encourage people to start that kind of sentence at the age of 15 or at the age of 18.

I do not believe, and I have had just as much experience in my own way as hon. members in this matter, that any girl is sufficiently mature at the age of 16, let alone at 15, to take on the responsibilities of marriage and motherhood in the serious sense of the word. Since as a rule men mature much later than women—of course, sometimes they never mature at all; we see it in this House!—it is also quite absurd, on the face of it, that a boy of 18 should be considered fit for the responsibilities of marriage.

We do not encourage it.

I know that, but it is happening in society to-day and it is a fact we must face. Social welfare workers are very much concerned about this change. I too have had talks with some of them. Women’s organizations in South Africa too are very concerned about this. What does the written permission of the Minister ultimately mean? In the normal course of events, all documents relating to a case are placed before him together, I suppose, with some kind of departmental recommendation on the strength of the investigations made by the Department of Social Welfare. The Minister does not have the necessary time to go into all the details of a case. But why do these cases come to him in the first place? Let us get down to first causes—why does it come about that the Minister has to decide on 2,000 odd marriages for girls of 16 years? These cases are without exception cases where the young people concerned find themselves in a compromising situation. The hard fact is that more single adolescent girls find themselves in the family way to-day than ever before. As such it is becoming an increasingly difficult social problem. Is it the Minister’s idea, by introducing this provision, to encourage young people to legitimize the child by placing the seal of marriage on its birth? Presumably, that is one of the ideas behind this provision. To my mind that is a very shortsighted way indeed of dealing with this growing social problem. If he does not know, the Minister’s social welfare advisers can tell him that the chances are that 99 per cent of this type of marriage do not last. Invariably a divorce comes after a few years. Then the last fate of the child is much worse than the first, because a broken marriage is very often more damaging to the psyche of a growing child than the consistent care of one parent, even if the situation happens to be difficult. An hon. member got up and said that a girl of 15 could not look after a child by herself but apparently she could quite happily do that if she was married to a male of 18. The implication is that if the boy of 18 was there, all would be well. This is absolute rubbish where we are dealing with a problem of this kind because it is unlikely that any youth of 18, or a girl of 15, would take a solemn decision, unless under a crisis, to enter into a contract of marriage. As I have said, in most of these cases they are forced into it by circumstances. These are very delicate and complex human situations and therefore our welfare organizations and others directly concerned with this should, as pointed out by the hon. member for Umbilo, be given an opportunity to express their views before any legislation is rushed through this House. We still have a commission investigating the high divorce rate in the country; it has not reported yet. Have members of this Commission been consulted about this legislation? If not, why not? In any event, why this hurry? Why cannot we wait until the Commission has reported because then we shall know what percentage of divorces in South Africa fall within the age group 15 to 25 years. I think the Minister would find those figures very revealing. If that percentage is high, what type of answer does this Bill present?

The Minister, as well as other hon. members, referred quite happily to the old Free State Republic and to various other legislative bodies and said that in those days girls married at 14 and boys at 15 without anybody seeming to think there was anything wrong with that. Well, I just want to say that the youthful age at which girls were permitted to marry 70, 80, 90 years ago simply meant that the men at the time wanted to marry them at that age—it is as simple as that. All these laws have been made by men, Sir, and thought up by them. Early marriages in those days had nothing to do with the maturity of the girl concerned. Nobody in those days cared whether she was mature or not—she just became an obedient little follower of her husband and had precious little option of being anything else. Well, the situation is quite different to-day. Hon. members have made the point that this measure aims at adapting the position to modern conditions. Well, if that is so, then you cannot use legislation of the Orange Free State Republic and other old bits of legislation as justification for what we are doing here. The two things simply cannot be reconciled. The Minister’s claims that a girl of 15 is to-day very much more developed than her forbears, is open to doubt. The entire social scene has changed entirely and the diverse influences on our young people are much greater than 70 years ago. Young people have much more freedom and are vulnerable to greater dangers and temptations. It seems to me that there is very little valid comparison between early marriages years ago and early marriages to-day, contracted as they often are at gunpoint because the couple goes to the Minister for permission with their parents standing behind them hoping that they will get permission because circumstances force them to get married. As we know, divorce has been legalized and is now only too easy to obtain. In a sense illegitimacy has also been legalized to the extent that the mother of an illegitimate child has to-day the same legal rights as a married mother. Hon. members know that. In terms of our law however neither girls of 15 nor boys of 18 are majors for ordinary legal purposes. And if they are not considered to be majors for purposes of signing a contract or doing anything of that nature, why should we hurry over this business of reducing the marriage age? I cannot emphasize too much what other hon. members have said, i.e. that notwithstanding a free vote, this matter should not be dealt with in a hurry. If this debate has made one thing clear it is that neither hon. members on this side nor hon. members on the other side possess the total answer to this problem. That being the case, surely the wisest thing to do is to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point and refer the matter to a Select Committee where people closely concerned with these social problems can give evidence. On the basis of the wisdom thus obtained we can then decide what to do.

At the outset I want to express my appreciation towards and convey my congratulations to the three members on my side who participated in this debate, i.e. the hon. members for Wit-bank, Potgietersrust and Piketberg. They dealt with this delicate matter with excellent insight. They made excellent contributions here in a manner which testified to knowledge and sympathy, knowledge and sympathy which in their case had its origin in their past; it is worthy of note that the hon. member for Witbank and the hon. member for Piketberg were both ministers in the Church to which I also belong; the hon. member for Potgietersrust is an attorney. They approached this matter which we are discussing here to-day from a humanitarian point of view, not from a computerized point of view. These three hon. members had so much to do with these cases that they were able to rise to their feet to-day and make contributions here which testified to objectivity and sympathy born out of their knowledge.

But, Sir, what did we get from the Opposition in this debate? Did we get their customary pleas for the recognition of parental choice? After all, that is one of their favourite modes of attack on the Government. Did we hear their customary pleas for the recognition of human rights? Did we hear them? Did we hear a repetition of the old attacks of a Minister wanting to appropriate too many powers for himself here by way of legislation; did we hear that? No, Sir, we heard something quite different in this debate to-day. We heard something to-day which we are not accustomed to hearing from the United Party, and that is that they become emotional about such matters of national concern as Church and marriage. We are not accustomed to them becoming emotional about these matters, but to-day we have in fact heard them becoming emotional about them. Sir, you should have heard the speech by the hon. member for Jeppes. You should have heard how the hon. member for Green Point spoke about the Church aspect.

The hon. member for Green Point was concerned about the wording of clause 6, the questions which must be put by marriage officers. The hon. member regarded it as an invasion of the rights of the Church. Sir, what a far-fetched conclusion and interpretation! As the hon. member for Witbank, who for 20 years has been a minister, was quite right in saying, this provision in no way interferes with the right of the Church to use its own marriage formula. In fact, this is confirmed by this very provision. It is emphatically stated in clause 10 that the Churches retain the right to use their own formula, while including what is prescribed in the clause. We respect that right of the Churches; they will therefore continue to use their own formula.

All that we are doing in this clause therefore, in regard to which the United Party and specifically the hon. member for Green Point has kicked up such a fuss, is that we are prescribing that a uniform question shall be put over and above any formula which the Churches may have. The hon. member for Green Point must take into account the fact that marriage officers act as representatives of the State in this regard. In this respect they are officials of the State. In this specific task which they are performing, they are officials of the State. They are fully entitled, as clause 10 (2) reads, to have their own formula, but as far as that portion of the work is concerned which they are doing on behalf of the State, it is necessary in a well-run State that the question should be put in a uniform way and that is why, as the hon. members for Witbank and Piketberg both testified as ex-ministers, it will by no means be necessary for the Churches to amend their formula in terms of it. Cur Department will send out a circular to the marriage officers who are in the service of the Church, in which this procedure will be made very clear to them, and they will then be at liberty to extract that question and to use it according to their own judgment. But. Sir. what did we hear now from the Opposition? We had the customary opposition technique which is the proposal that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Actually they would like to refer every measure which comes before this House to a Select Committee. Is it necessary now to refer this measure to a Select Committee?

This measure contains three fundamental points. The first deals with this formula in connection with which the State does in fact have a responsibility because these are its representatives. I made it absolutely clear here that that formula must be carried out according to our pattern without in the least detracting from the right of the Church to comply with their own formula and ceremonial duties. The second fundamental point concerns the abolition of the banns in this respect, as I said in my Second Reading speech, we consulted the various Churches. Here I have a long memorandum consisting of extracts from the memoranda of some of the 23 Churches which, with the exception of the one Church to which reference was made here—these are all the major Churches in the country—all gave this matter their full support. Now, what else must a Select Committee find out in regard to this matter? Must they cause these Church representatives to meet again to give the same testimony they have already given here? Sir, surely this is unnecessary.

The third point in this connection is the question of the alteration of the age from 16 to 15 years. Surely it is a total illusion to think that a Select Committee will come forward with a unanimous decision in regard to this matter. You can appoint ten Select Committees on this matter and they will have divergent opinions in regard to it. It is for that reason that I said here that hon. members, both on that and on this side, can form an opinion in regard to this matter according to their own views; and who is better able to judge such a social matter with proper insight than we, the representatives of the people, in fact are?

What about the experts?

We are also experts.

Does the hon. member think that we are inexpert people? We are people who draw on expert opinions. Here are the reports of the experts. We here are the people who have contact with the various strata of the population; we are all people who belong to Churches, regardless of what Churches they may be. All, or most of us at least, are churchgoing people who are in contact with clerical opinion in the country. We are the proper people to decide on a social matter such as this. This is not a political matter; what is at issue here is not a question of party policy, Government policy or Opposition policy; what is at issue is simply a social matter in regard to which there may be a difference of opinion, even in a disciplined party, and the right of hon. members to exercise that right, is acknowledged. These are then the three fundamental points in this matter which hon. members of the Opposition want to refer to a Select Committee which will throw no light whatsoever for us on this matter. In this connection. Sir, this House must also accept responsibility. Just as it is necessary for the parents to accept responsibility in regard to their children, so it is also the task of hon. members and mine to accent responsibility in regard to a social matter such as this.

I come now to the question of 15-year-olds. Fundamentally. Sir, this question of the 15-year-old must be viewed from its human aspect. As far as we are concerned, it is the human aspect which counts in this connection. and in this respect I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Potgietersrust on his brilliant speech, in which he not only stated the historical and legal background to this matter, but also his experience as attorney. He recounted to the House how he had had to deal with these cases of 15-and 16-year-olds who wanted to marry and all the human suffering which that gave rise to. That is why, Sir, this measure has been introduced, and not principally to bring about a saving of manpower for us.

That is what you said.

That is so; it is an important consideration, but it is not the heart of the matter. What counts, are the humanitarian considerations, and when I speak of humanitarian considerations, Sir, I just want to refer you to the figure which the hon. member for Piketberg also quoted. If one considers that over a period of eight years, 1,038 applications were received from young girls between the ages of 15 and 16 years who wanted to get married, and that only 133 were refused, then you will be able to deduce at once what embarrassment this must have caused to those 1,038 cases. Let us rather restrict it to the 900 who did in fact receive permission to marry. You can understand what embarrassment, grief and suffering it must have caused them and their various parents. Can hon. members of the Opposition who are so concerned about human rights, not imagine what embarrassment this must have caused the parents of those 900 young girls as well as the young men, for they are in future also bound up and involved with those young girls? Now the hon. member for Umbilo comes forward here and his contribution is to say that it seems to him that only the young girls have become maturer because we are not lowering the age of the young men. Sir, that is a rather ridiculous argument. It is in the first place the expectant young girls whose sufferings are being taken into consideration in this connection. It is they in the first instance and, secondly, if a marriage must take place, then it is those young men who must be breadwinners and who must be able to support their young wives. Does the hon. member think that a young man who has not yet attained the age of 18 will be able, with our standard of living to-day, to run a home properly? It is those considerations which count; it has nothing to do with maturity. It is a question of the need to support a family properly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform hon. members what the actual effect of this measure would be if it should be passed. If this measure were to be passed by the House and were to become law and the age were to be changed from 16 to 15, do hon. members know what numbers of persons are actually going to be affected annually, according to our particulars? Annually there will only be ten cases where the Minister could have withheld his consent, who will then be able to marry in South Africa; that is what is at issue. But another matter of importance is that the tendency in our country is not in the direction of more child marriages. There is no indication according to our statistics that there is an increased tendency to child marriages, whether between the age of 15 and 16 or below the age of 15. I have the figures here, but do not deem it necessary to furnish them to the House.

The hon. member for Umbilo came forward here with the theoretical argument that if the age was lowered to 15 years, then it may as well be lowered to 14 years. Sir, these things are after all determined by public opinion, as it is going to be done in this House. Public opinion as reflected in this Parliament will decide on this question of 16 or 15 years.

Who asked that the age be lowered?

There are numerous social workers who deem it necessary. There are numerous people dealing with the youth, who deem it necessary. The hon. member mentioned a few who were opposed to it, but in the same way there are many who are in favour of it. [Interjections.] We are aware of their opinion and that hon. member is here to reflect their opinion and not to flee from his responsibility in this regard.

What happened in 1960?

We have a task and a responsibility which the United Party wants to shift onto a select committee. This House has a responsibility to the country and to the people in the social and every other sphere, and that is the responsibility which we are asking hon. members to meet here.

In conclusion, the hon. member raised the question of whether I had discussed this matter with the Minister of National Education in order to determine what the effect would be on the children. Yes, when legislation of this nature is before this House it is given proper consideration not only by the Department and the Minister, but is also given proper consideration by the Cabinet, where every Minister has the opportunity to express his opinion or his reservations. I can therefore give you the assurance that the Minister of National Education has in fact been thoroughly consulted in this regard.

During the Second Reading the hon. the Minister, in reply to a question I put to him in regard to one of the members of the Bantu Affairs Commission being from South-West Africa, said it was not necessary to do so because the whole of the Commission would now give attention to the affairs of South-West Africa as well. But I would like to point out that with the Act as it stands now, South-West Africa is represented by the Administrator of that Territory. Admittedly he may not have attended the meetings of the Commission, but provision was made for him to be there ex officio as somebody representing that area. Now, I submit that the position in South-West Africa differs materially from that in South Africa and I want to ask the Minister again whether he does not think it advisable to make provision for at least one of the members of the Commission to be appointed because of his knowledge of South-West Africa in view of the fact that the Commission has to deal with South-West Africa as well.

As I explained yesterday, this Act is now being made applicable to the population of South-West Africa as well, and the principle that the Bantu Affairs Commission for the Republic is not composed on a territorial basis has always applied in the past. Therefore we would have to introduce a new principle if we wanted to give South-West Africa representation on the Commission in that way. However, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that if it proves to be necessary in the execution of the duties of the Bantu Affairs Commission, if it appears that there is a deficiency, we shall most certainly be prepared to consider that deficiency and try to supplement it to the best of our ability. We think that in practice it will become clear that there is no such deficiency, owing to the structure of the Commission and because of the close liaison existing among our Department and the Commission and the native peoples of South-West Africa in general. Therefore we do not regard it as necessary at this stage, but, as I said, if it becomes clear that there is an urgent need, we shall certainly be prepared to consider the matter thoroughly and to supplement any such deficiency to the best of our ability in order to meet that need.

The Minister is now increasing the number of the members of the Commission by one. Admittedly the Administrator is no longer a member of the Commission. As I read the Bill the first time, I envisaged that the additional member was being put on to represent South-West Africa because the Administrator was now being removed. Who is this additional member supposed to represent, and why is it necessary to add an additional member if it is not to represent the people of South-West Africa, and, furthermore, was the Administrator of South-West Africa consulted on this and was he satisfied that there should be no representation for his area?

The Administrator of South-West Africa has been consulted and he is satisfied. That is my reply to the first point raised. In regard to the second part of the hon. member’s question, I want to point out that the total number of commissioners has now diminished by one and not increased by one, so in effect there is really no extra member.

Because he did not actually take part in the working of the Commission.

In the past the Commission could have consisted of seven members, whereas now it will consist only of six members. So there is one fewer. And as was pointed out yesterday, in terms of the regulations we have in mind augmenting this Commission by persons with special knowledge, not only of a particular region but also in the fields of economics, agriculture, etc. For that reason we felt that it was not necessary now to make specific provision for a member to represent South-West Africa or for the appointment of a member because of his special knowledge of South-West Africa. But I repeat that if the need is felt, we will look at it seriously.

Surely it is not correct to say that a new principle is being introduced here, because the present principle is that the Administrator of South-West Africa must serve on it. Therefore we are not asking for a new principle; we are only asking for the same principle to be retained, but that it need not necessarily be the Administrator, but a person who has special knowledge of the affairs of South-West Africa.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

Yesterday in the Second Reading I said that we were supporting this Bill mainly because of this provision in clause 8, where it is now proposed to delete the selected members from the urban Bantu councils. I then referred the Deputy Minister to a speech made by the present Minister, who was the Deputy Minister when this Act was passed, in which he said that the selected members were essential to keep the link between the chiefs in the reserves and their people in the urban areas. I want to know why the Government has now found it necessary to abolish this type of representation. I want to make it quite clear that we support it, because we were against the selected members to begin with. But the Minister then said in reply to me that this had become necessary because the urban Bantu councils were working so efficiently. I want to know what he means by that. Because they are working so efficiently, because the present system of councils is working so efficiently, he has to do away with some of the members. Or is he finding that these representatives of the chiefs are in fact a hindrance to the workings of the councils? Why is it necessary specially to do away with them?

Mr. Chairman, I want to state most emphatically that the removal of the selected members on the urban Bantu councils, i.e. the representatives of the chiefs, must please not be interpreted as meaning that those chiefs or their representatives did not carry out their duties properly. I want to emphasize this most strongly. That is not the case. The fact of the matter is simply, as I said yesterday, that in the ten years since the formulation of the Act in terms of which the representatives of the chiefs have been nominated as selected members on the urban Bantu councils, the position has developed to such an extent that we now find ourselves in circumstances where we can have ethnic representative councils in the white areas. These councils are, in our opinion, far better able to fulfil the important function of maintaining liaison between the homeland government and its compatriots in the white areas than is the case with the liaison put into operation in 1960, when the representative of the chiefs on the urban Bantu councils carried out the necessary liaison. That is the main reason. There is also a secondary reason. At present there are 14 urban Bantu councils in the Republic of South Africa. In practice we have certain problems in certain areas which hamper the establishment of urban Bantu councils, in the sense that it is sometimes difficult as a result of the fact that there are many chiefs in an area who have to be represented. It is sometimes extremely difficult to give representation to all of those chiefs. This results in delays in the establishment of urban Bantu councils.

These two factors have forced us to effect this amendment in order to be able to develop the ethnic representative councils better than was the case in the past. Lastly, I just want to point out, too, that it must be clearly understood that this does not mean that the representative of a chief will not be able to serve on an urban Bantu council in future. A representative of a chief can still serve on an urban Bantu council. The difference is that he can no longer do so as a selected member, but can in fact do so as an elected member.

Mr. Chairman, the first part of the explanation given by the hon. the Deputy Minister does not amount to anything at all. He is merely trying to justify the attitude of the Government at the time. The hon. the Deputy Minister now says that developments have been such that they find that a council consisting of elected members can represent the Bantu and the chiefs as well as one with selected members. But, Sir, that is no reason for abolishing the chiefs as members. The real reason is the one the hon. the Minister gave as his second reason, namely the difficulty of application. There are so many chiefs represented in different urban areas that they cannot possibly have them all represented. We pointed that out at the time, namely, that it was an impracticable proposition. If the hon. the Deupty Minister had told us straightaway—I do not know whether I could use the word “honest”—but if he had been frank with us and said that they found it difficult to apply their policy, we would have appreciated it much more than the way he has in fact tried to do it. They find it difficult in applying their policy in regard to the councils. We do appreciate that. As I have said before, we are not opposed to it. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that a chief can be on the council by being elected to the council. I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister was here when this Act was passed. I should like to remind him that we then pointed out that if these chiefs were wanted as representatives in an area, they could be elected. The chiefs could be represented in that manner. I am glad to get the frank admission from the hon. the Deputy Minister that they found their policy impossible and difficult to apply.

Oh no.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In my opinion the best way of dealing with this Bill will be to deal with the various clauses separately:

Clause 1, paragraph (a):

As you may perhaps recall, the definition of “reasonable rent” was expanded last year by the provision that a lessee shall be responsible for the payment for electrical power, gas or fuel supplied by means of a submeter regardless of whether a rent determination has made provision therefor. During the introduction of that Bill I elaborated at length on the need for the provision, and there is probably no need for me to repeat it here. Unfortunately as paragraph (j) of the definition in question now reads, it appears that payment shall only be made for electrical power which is supplied by a submeter. Yet is was clearly the intention that electrical power, gas or fuel should be paid for, and consequently the position is now being rectified.

Clause 1, paragraphs (b;, (c) and (d):

In a recent Supreme Court case the Judge found that the “value” of a property should be determined according to the definition of “value” in the Act. On the basis of that value the Rent Board must then determine the reasonable rent in terms of the following formula: (a) a return of 8 per cent per annum on the value of the building, (b) a return of 6 per cent per annum on the value of the land, plus amounts in respect of taxes, insurance, etc. A determined percentage return is therefore prescribed in the Act. It has been found, however, that the first proviso to the definition of “reasonable rent” creates a problem. This proviso lays down that in the determination of such rent, the Rent Board shall take into proper consideration the rent which is being charged in the neighbourhood for premises of a similar class, nature or situation. This affords the Rent Board a further discretion in regard to the determination of the return. This proviso, apparently retained from the time when Rent Boards still had a discretion in respect of the 8 and 6 per cent, has however lost all its value in respect of the provision of a reasonable rent now that a fixed percentage return has been written into the Act. Consequently it is being proposed that this be deleted. In the determination of the value of a property a Rent Board must take one or more of the following into consideration: (a) the actual building costs, (b) any municipal or divisional council valuation, (c) any sworn or building society valuation, (d) the purpose for which the property is being utilized.

It is therefore proper that the rent value of controlled premises of a similar class, nature or situation in the neighbourhood should be taken into account in the determination of “value” and consequently it is being proposed that the definition of “value” be expanded accordingly.

Clause 2:

In terms of paragraph (c) of the definition of “reasonable rent” a Rent Board must allow the lessor the amount of the actual rates and taxes on the property. When such taxes are increased, a lessor may, after proper notification. increase the rent of the dwelling as a result of the increase in taxes. In terms of section 3 (1) (b) the increase in taxes may, with the written approval of the chairman of the Rent Board in question, be added to the rent. There has, however, been representations from the public that in a case where taxes are for example levied for a calendar year, tax increases are not published before the end of January or during February. Suppose the lessor received notice during February that the taxes on his property had been increased. He can, with the approval of the chairman of the Rent Board add the increase to the rent but not before he has given the lessee one month’s notice thereof. The lessor can therefore only give the necessary notice with effect from 1st March, the result of which is that he can only recover the increase with effect from 1st April. The lessor therefore has to pay the increased taxes out of his own pocket for three months, which was of course never the intention of the Act. It is after all the object of the Act that the full rates and taxes be added to the rent and consequently this amendment is being deemed necessary. Hon. members will note that it is being ensured that the lessee must be given notice of the increase as soon as possible in order to prevent his having to pay a large arrears amount in respect of such increase.

I come now to clause 3. Lessees of controlled dwellings enjoy wide protection against ejectment in terms of the Rent Act. A court order is required for ejectment, and no court order is issued if the lessee pays his rent and complies with the conditions of the lease, except on six different grounds mentioned in section 21 (1). One of the six grounds mentioned here is when the premises are reasonably required for the purpose of a reconstruction or rebuilding scheme. In such a case the lessee must be given six months prior notice to vacate, etc. In addition the court must previously have stated that such a reconstruction or rebuilding scheme is in the public interest, and a copy of such court order must be attached to the notice given. Instead of complying with these regulations when reconstruction or rebuilding schemes have to be carried out, particularly in respect of flats, lessors are at present having recourse to all kinds of means to cause lessees to vacate of their own accord. Annoyance is caused by means of building activities. At times lift facilities are put out of action, and refuse removal services are cancelled, etc. I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) is fully conversant with one of the cases which occurred in his constituency.

I think you are reading my letter at this moment.

Well, then the hon. member has at least done something useful during the past year. By means of this intimidatory behaviour a war of nerves is waged against the lessees and their resistance is eventually broken down. In most cases the lessees then vacate in order to rid themselves of unpleasantness, which allows the lessor to have his own way. This circumvention of the Act cannot be allowed, and consequently it is being deemed desirable that deliberate intimidation of lessees with the purpose of causing them to vacate of their own accord, should be made an offence, as is being envisaged with this clause. I am quite willing to admit to the House that this step has been taken at the specific request of the hon. member for Durban (Point) because he found this to be the case in his own constituency. He must not vote against it, though.

I come now to clause 4. The Rents Act of 1950 provided, before it was amended last year by Act No. 64/69, that in respect of unfurnished dwellings a deposit may be demanded which does not exceed one month’s rental, and only in respect of lights, gas, water or sewerage where these are not included in the rental. It has always been the view that the acceptance of deposits for damages and the loss of keys in respect of unfurnished dwellings is illegal. With the amendment of section 25 by Act No. 64/69, promulgated on 28th May, 1969, it was authorized that in respect of all dwellings, furnished and unfurnished, a deposit of not more than a month’s rental may be accepted for lights, gas, water or sewerage where such services are not included in the rent, and also in respect of damages to such a dwelling or any loss of keys. The portion of the deposit demanded for damages and any loss of keys must be specified in the receipt, the deposit must be invested with a building society and must on vacation by the lessee be repaid together with interest minus the costs of damage and the costs of replacing any keys. If the lessor and lessee cannot reach an agreement on the amount of damages and the cost of replacing keys, this must be determined by the Rent Board. In Supreme Court case in Bloemfontein, however, the Judge recently ruled that it was quite lawful for the lessor to demand a deposit in respect of an unfurnished dwelling for possible damage to the property. According to this ruling, therefore, all deposits demanded by lessors for damages before the amendment of the Act are therefore quite lawful. There is some doubt now as to whether deposits which were accepted by lessors in respect of damages and the loss of keys before the amendment the Act, should now in terms of the amended section 25 be invested with building societies, the deposit repaid with interest to the lessee on vacation, and in the case of a dispute whether the Rent Board can determine the amount of damages and the cost of replacing keys. The opinion is that the existing section 25 is not with retrospective effect and that those provisions do not therefore apply in respect of deposits accepted before the amendment. As a result of this doubt there is also some uncertainty now as to whether Rent Boards can act as prescribed in the existing section 25 when a lessor and lessee cannot agree on the amount of the damages and the cost of replacing keys where the deposit was accepted before the date of commencement of the amendment, i.e. 28th May, 1969.

What is being proposed here is simply for the purpose of removing all doubt in this respect. In terms of the existing Act, section 26, a lessor may not refuse to let a dwelling if a child is to reside in that dwelling, declare by way of notice or otherwise that he is not prepared to let a dwelling to any person with a child, or inquire from a prospective lessee whether he intends to permit a child to reside in the dwelling. Any person contravening this provision, is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding R100. This provision is however only applicable to dwellings which fall under rent control. Generally speaking it is not applicable to dwellings which were occupied for the first time subsequent to 1st June, 1966. It appears, however, that it happens only too often that owners of buildings, particularly blocks of flats which do not fawl under the rent control, that is to say dwellings to which the provisions of the Act are not applicable, discriminate against children when letting accommodation. It is of course possible to take steps against them by placing the building under rent control, but it very often appears unnecessary to make all the implications of the Act applicable to such a building if the lessor is “offending” only in respect of children. However, steps must be taken against this malpractice, i.e. the exclusion of children from flats and other dwellings, and consequently it is being proposed in paragraph (a) of this clause that section 26 be made applicable to all dwellings and not only to dwellings constructed prior to 1st June, 1966. As far as paragraph (b) is concerned, I simply mention for the sake of information that in terms of section 33 (1) (h) the provisions of the Act are not applicable to old dwellings, the owner of which has satisfied the Minister:

1. (a) that the age thereof is at least 100 years;
2. (b) that he has on the restoration thereof spent an amount in excess of the purchase price or market value, and
3. (c) that the dwelling has been restored faithfully according to tradition.

Problems have arisen however in regard to the latter provision i.e. that the dwelling has been restored faithfully according to tradition. It is usually necessary, in order to make such a hundred-year-old dwelling suitable for modern occupation, to provide modern conveniences such as ablutional and cooking facilities, as well as other alterations both to the interior as well as the enterior so that the dwelling can be adapted to the present-day way of life. As a result of such necessary adjustments it can, however, be argued that such a restored dwelling has not been restored “faithfully according to tradition”. In order to make it possible to apply the relevant section under the presently prevailing circumstances as well, the amendment as contained in paragraph (b) has consequently been deemed necessary. I may just mention that the restoration of these old houses is to-day providing an important source of housing for the middle and higher income groups, and that it is of tremendous assistance to us in coping with the housing problem.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will support this Bill at the Second Reading. It is essentially a Committee Stage Bill. Legislation comes forward from time to time dealing with the Rents Act and the application of the Rents Act. The hon. the Minister has indicated in introducing the Bill that he finds, as we all find, that the Rents Act does not in application meet all circumstances and certainly does not satisfy neither all tenants nor all landlords. It is one of the problems of a control measure that that is bound to happen. Our problem here, since the necessity for control has been established, is to see that the Act is applied in an equitable way in so far as landlords and tenants are concerned. One of the problems arising in the application of the Act is in relation to the determination of a reasonable rent and of value for the purposes of certain percentage allowances in the determination of a reasonable rent. It is for that reason and in order to meet one of those difficulties that the hon. the Minister has brought forward certain amendments to the definition of “reasonable rent” and to the definition of “value”. This definition has been amended some four or five times in the last few years and I think that probably the majority of court cases have turned on this question of what is a reasonable rent and on the interpretation of this legislation. I think one of the great problems that we are faced with is that whatever is done in our legislation to determine what is a reasonable rent within the prescribed percentages and allowances, this House cannot legislate to control the human factor in the Rent Board’s application of those considerations in determining rent. Unfortunately one finds that there are certain areas in which Rent Board decisions appear to be reasonably satisfactory to both landlord and tenant whereas in others there seems to be an imbalance which gives rise to a lot of difficulty. This human factor in the application of rent control is one, of course, which, as I have said, one cannot control by legislation. One has the position that it is necessary in times of shortage of housing, in times when the demand for housing exceeds the supply of dwellings, to protect tenants against exploitation. At the same time one has to realize that the landlord or the property developer or the would-be property developer has no legal or moral obligation to supply housing other than on a basis profitable to himself. One has to realize that that is so, and the danger in exercising too much control in the determination of a reasonable rental is the fact that one may cause private investment in this sector to dry up, investment which is so necessary if we are to have adequate housing facilities. Sir, I do not want to enlarge upon that at this stage. We will have an opportunity of discussing this in a friendly and frank manner with the hon. the Minister when we deal under his Vote with the question of housing and the availability of housing, and its effects on the market.

Do you promise to be friendly on that occasion?

So far as we can be friendly with the hon. the Minister, we shall endeavour to be friendly. We notice that after the election he has come back a very much quieter and more subdued man than he was before the election when he was giving us his prophecies as to what was likely to happen.

He has come back a poorer man too.

Sir, various amendments are being brought about in this Bill. I have already mentioned the amendment to the definition of “reasonable rental” which we can discuss in more detail in the Committee Stage. I do not propose to deal with clause 3, which the hon. the Minister has correctly referred to as one dealing with a matter raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point), who has had particular problems which apply in Durban and perhaps to a lesser degree in other areas because of the extent of the letting of property along the sea front in Durban with its holiday attractions. This problem does not occur to the same extent in other centres such as Cape Town or Johannesburg.

Sir, then I come to the question of the renovation of old buildings. We are faced here with a situation which has arisen because we have lost the opportunity of providing housing at a low and reasonable cost to people in the middle income group. With the application of the Group Areas Act, particularly here in the Cape Peninsula, considerable numbers of properties have had to be evacuated and these properties have fallen into the hands of what I will term the private profiteer. Some of these properties are very old. They have been renovated, and the benefit flowing from the demand for accommodation is now falling into the hands of the profiteer and not into the hands neither of the original owner, who was removed as a result of the declaration of a group area, nor into the hands of the State. I hope that the hon. the Minister will perhaps later in the course of the session indicate to us where he has seen fit to grant exemption from the provisions of the Act in the case of these so-called renovated houses. One finds that there is a considerable demand for these properties because they are attractive, and if they are exempted from rent control one finds that people have to pay an exorbitant rental because of their inability to find other accommodation. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree that it is necessary to keep a very careful check to see that these properties are not let at an excessive rental when they have merely been treated to a splash of white-wash and a bit of replastering. I do know that numbers of owners of these properties have in fact been before the Rent Board. Not having obtained the exemption which the Minister is able to grant, they have been brought before the Rent Board which found that excessive rentals were being charged for these so-called Chelsea type of property by a private developer. Then, Sir, there is the other side of the coin. There are areas in the Western Cape particularly—Stellenbosch for example—where there is the most valuable restoration of historic buildings, which are being adapted at the same time to provide accommodation. The inside of the building is adapted in such a way that it can accommodate two or three families whereas in its original form it was a one-family dwelling. We have no objection to that, Sir, if the exterior of the property is preserved. Some of these properties are being restored on a basis which is profitable in that they can be let, not at an excessive rental but to two or three families, each occupying a separate flat.

Sir, as I indicated when I commenced my speech, we will support this measure at the Second Reading. We will however have certain comments to make in the Committee Stage. In fact, I hope that we will be able to put forward to the hon. the Minister certain amendments and adaptations of the law as it stands to meet a number of the problems which are faced not only by the tenant but also by the landlord.

Sir, this is going to be one of the rare occasions on which the hon. the Minister of Community Development and I are not going to throw anything at each other except perhaps an odd compliment. I appreciate the remarks which the hon. the Minister made.

You are beginning to get sense.

On an issue like this I agree with the hon. member who has just interjected that even the Minister sees a little light and shows a little sense. Sir, this is a serious and a very complicated problem. Like the hon. member for Green Point, I think all of us who represent urban constituencies, and particularly those of us who represent flatland constituencies, realize the vicious circle in which we are caught up. The more you apply restrictions under the Rents Act, the less people are prepared to invest, the less housing you get, the greater the shortage and the greater the number of people who tend to exploit it, and so the circle goes round and round until the stage has been reached, particularly in areas like my own constituencies where there is a demand for holiday accommodation at high prices, where there is virtually a crisis. Over 20 large buildings in my constituency alone which used to be available for letting, have been withdrawn over the last five or six years. A few—very few—have been demolished and others have been converted into holiday flats or into hotels, with the result that hundreds upon hundreds of people have lost their homes. This measure is designed to meet some of the problems that arise in this process. I agree with the hon. member for Green Point that we will have to look at this much more closely under the Minister’s Vote, because I believe that as things stand we cannot expect the landlord to subsidize rentals. It is unfair and unreasonable to expect a landlord, as the result of legislation, to have to subsidize tenants, to carry losses or to invest at a very low return simply in order to provide accommodation. We believe that there are some practical ways in which this problem should be tackled. That is an aspect that we cannot deal with under this Bill, but it is necessary to get the correct perspective so that the impression is not created that we are simply trying to impose more and more restrictions. We cannot put forward positive suggestions on the landlord’s side in the debate on this Bill, but it is necessary to keep a balance between the landlord’s right to a fair return on his investment, in the same way as any other business man who invests money is entitled to a fair return, and the tenant’s right to realistic protection.

The hon. the Minister has dealt with the Bill as separate clauses and I think that is perhaps the best way to approach it.

When we look at the definitions we find that there are amendments to the definition of “value” and a change in regard to “interest”. But one definition which is missing and which I believe requires attention is a definition covering a “lessor”. A lessor should be defined to eliminate the problems which we have to-day, firstly with the sale of blocks of shares which carry occupancy rights. Then there is the new system which has been used recently to avoid the provisions of the Rents Act, the system of registration of undivided title where the existing owner retains the residual ownership and as a flat is “sold”, it is registered in undivided title. Here I refer to the Stella Green case. With the Sectional Titles Bill, which is coming up this Session but which has now been referred to a Select Committee, a third group will be brought into the picture which will make a mockery of the whole of the Rents Act as it now stands unless some definition is inserted which will give protection to existing tenants and eliminate the use of either share ownership, undivided title or sectional title as an excuse or as a back door through which tenants can be got rid of by a landlord who wants to evict them. This is a matter to which I hope the hon. the Minister will give serious attention, because unless we have that definition or some protection or some clarification of the position, I foresee even more trouble than we have at the moment and, as everyone knows, that is more than enough.

The other definition which is not amended but which I think we must look at is that of “services”. At the moment there are certain buildings which give a so-called Continental breakfast, a dry bun and a cup of coffee which they call breakfast and then they put up the rent by R10 or R15 a month because they are now supplying bed and breakfast. There are others which use a nearby café and give people tickets to go and get some fish and chips or something. That is called full board and they can increase the rent as much as they like, out of all relationship to the value of the food. In many cases that food is not supplied in premises within the building itself. The definition in the present Act says “provided there is a room set aside for this purpose” but it does not say that the room must be set aside in the building itself.

The hon. the Minister has amended the definition of “value”. I do not know whether this will really solve the problem; it is more of a technical amendment, but this question of comparable rentals which is now being added as a fifth yardstick by which values must be established is one which always leads to argument. What is a comparable building? Is it comparable in regard to the number of flats it has, or the quality of the building, or the finish of it, or in its locality, because it is on the sea front or in a back lane? All of these are matters for argument and I do not think that this will solve the problem. Nor does it solve the problem of leasehold property, where value is established by boards based on its equivalent value if it were sold. But it is not sold; it is under leasehold, the owner simply paying a premium for so many years, a basic premium plus a rental of so much per year as leasehold. There again, I feel the matter has to be looked at with a view to finding some proper basis where the amount which the owner has paid in premium and the annual lease payments, can be amortized over the period of his lease. A rental simply based on comparable values is not the same. The other question of value which is not clarified by this amendment is the problem of old and often small buildings on very valuable ground, where you have an extremely valuable piece of ground with a building on it which cannot possibly justify the rental which would be required to cover the true value of the ground and the buildings. These are problems which I feel require further attention and which we may be able to look into during the Committee Stage.

The next definition which is amended is that of “interest”. A change is made here and I would again ask the Minister to consider going further. There have been cases where an owner with a bond-free property raises a bond and uses that money to invest in some quite different enterprise, even to lend it out at high interest or to invest it in a business. He is then entitled to claim the rate of interest which he is paying on it because it is a bond on the property. I believe that if a person borrows money against the property he should only be entitled to interest on the percentage of that money actually applied to the property, either for its purchase or for its improvement, or for the benefit of the inhabitants of the building. But to borrow money against the building, to claim the full interest at 9½ per cent or 10 per cent from the tenants of the building and then to take that money, which is then free money, because it is being paid for by the tenants, and to invest it in something else where he makes a profit is also something which we should look into during the Committee Stage.

The second clause deals with rates. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this clause as now worded is going to cover the position where a landlord sends a notice out to the tenants saying that according to Press reports the rates this year are likely to increase by 15 per cent and therefore their share will be so much.

The increase can only come when the rates are actually increased.

That is as I read it, but now you have some municipalities where the rates are levied from 1st March to 28th February, but in fact the budget is only introduced about August. Those who pay annually pay in the middle of the year and the others pay month by month. So round about February landlords then warn tenants that the rates are likely to be increased and this increase will be retrospective. I realize that it is a problem, but it is not covered by this amendment because the announcement of the increase has not been made. But if it is not covered, if the landlord must wait until the actual increase is announced and that increase is made retrospective by the local authorities …

That is not correct. It cannot happen.

It does happen. I can mention a case in Durban at the moment. I have at least three letters here, one dealing with King’s Mansions, where it was announced that the rates would be increased.

It is announced in the annual budget.

Yes, but the annual budget does not come until about October and the financial year runs to February. I do not want to hold up the debate, but I have a number of notices here where notice is now being given at this stage, long before the increases are actually brought into effect. If that is not going to be permitted, then either the owner must carry the loss or there will be arrears to be paid by the tenants.

He may then have to pay a large sum of money.

Yes, I think this question where announcements are made retrospective is one which we will have to examine in the Committee Stage.

If that is the position, I can tell you now that I will be quite willing to accept an amendment to that effect, because the whole purpose is that the tenant must pay the actual increased rates within a reasonable time.

I am grateful for that acknowledgement; I think it is something we will have to look at.

Now we come to the heart of this Bill, which is the intimidation clause. The hon. the Minister has given some examples of what happens. This is a clause which is likely to be controversial and I would like to go a little further than the Minister has gone. He mentioned one or two of the things that can be done, but I have listed the actual things which have happened in one building alone in Durban, and I am going to name the building. This was in Kangelani, a block of flats which was bought by a firm called Lipman Properties. One of the first things done was to remove the light from the room in which the tenants’ letter-boxes were placed so that they could not see to collect their post. They just took the globe out. They then removed the induna and the night-watchman so that there was no control at night and vagrants could walk in and out of the building. They then stopped all service and reduced the rent accordingly, but they gave no service whatsoever. Even in the public areas of the building, cleanliness was almost non-existent, because as a person moved out of the building they started to demolish his flat. All day and every day you had jack-hammers going flat out and shaking the whole building, and one knows what a jack-hammer sounds like in a confined space.

Is that not covered by the new section 21 (4) (b), which refers to being guilty of an activity which constitutes a nuisance to the lessee?

No, because he used the back door of the right to renovate; he claimed that these were renovations. I have had discussion after discussion with the department, and he said he was simply renovating the flats. But I have not finished yet, Sir, because then they started carting out the rubble which they had removed from the broken-down flats and they used the only two passenger lifts continuously all day to cart down rubble and bring up cement and plaster in wheelbarrows, so that some tenants often had to walk 15 floors to get to their own flats. They then stopped removing rubbish and said the tenants had to remove their own rubbish from their flats and take it downstairs to an area set aside where it would be collected by the municipal rubbish-vans. Tenants, many of them old people, had to take their own rubbish-bins downstairs, with the lifts being used for concrete, cement and plaster. They then started looking out for anyone doing personal laundry.

Is that one of your voters?

No, fortunately it is not one of my voters; he comes from Johannesburg. Then we started to find the water suddenly not running by accident, and then the lights would be cut off by accident, because somebody had stuck a pick through a wire. Then the hot water did not work because they were putting in new boilers. So it went on and on. Then they started knocking down the front flats, which I believe is an offence but for which they have not been prosecuted. The front flats were destroyed and turned into an entrance foyer. Long before that they had taken off the names from the notice-board because they said that all the tenants would have to get out. I have here a letter to the tenants received on 19th June, just a month or so ago, saying that all private telephones installed in the building are being changed to a switchboard system, and will the tenants please notify the Telephone Department of their new number so that they can take the telephones out. Sir, I immediately took this up with the Post Office and this has been stopped, because the landlord has no right to order the telephone of a private tenant to be removed, but the wording of this letter could have led people, if they had not come to inquire, into acting in terms of the request to notify the Telephone Department to remove their telephones.

Then he will remove the exchange.

Yes, I have heard that has been done, too; the exchange has been cancelled. I have another case. On 15th April this year a lady went overseas for three months, so she sent her rent for the three months. After she had left it was returned with a letter saying: “Dear Madam, enclosed please find your money order for So-and-So as we cannot accept more than one month’s rent in advance”. When she got back after three months there was an eviction order posted on her door. [Interjections.] Now they have issued a beautiful brochure for this building and they have changed its name. It is now called Golden Sands, and they have told the tenants that they can buy their flats. And in this advertisement they say the following—

They undertake to do the sub-letting. They go on, and in referring to a new company that was formed, say—

Then I have other information which is not printed but which is written on the back of the brochure by the salesman at the time when he is trying to sell the flats. This is that a small flat can be let for R60 to R70 per week and a large flat at R120 per week. These are rent-controlled flats. There may be landlords who may query the necessity for a clause of this nature but this is the sort of thing that makes it necessary. This is the sort of exploitation and activity which justifies the department and the Government, fully supported by me, taking action to act against people who do this sort of thing. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, as soon as this Bill is passed, to act in terms of clause 3 against people who do this sort of thing.

I think we can.

I hope so. I have here at least four or five letters written to tenants in the building. This is not a letter in which tenants are being given notice. It reads—

Here I have another letter. It starts off by saying: “… We intend commencing renovations …”. It is also an intention of giving notice.

You will lose your seat next time if it continues like that.

I will have no buildings left in my constituency if this goes on. I list these things and ask the hon. the Minister whether perhaps even now we have gone far enough.

There are of course other things going on. I have a letter here offering to sell other flats at R6,000 with no capital deposit whatsoever, and no shares being sold. It simply says that they will sell the flat to the tenant for R6,000 and asks them to sign an agreement to pay R54 per month. I then got one of the tenants to write to the owners and to ask them what would happen if they left before they had paid the R6.000 and how much of the R54 was in respect of capital, interest, etc. They were also asked what would happen if tenants did not want to buy the flats but wanted to stay there and whether shares would be sold. I received an answer only a day or two ago. It reads—

In other words, not a cent is paid towards capital redemption. That person therefore will never own that flat.

But surely that is illegal.

Mr. Chairman, this has been taken to the Department of Community Development. I reported it myself.

But we are not a court of law, you know.

No. Who can prosecute other than the Government in a case like this? This is an offer to sell. I though it was illegal but I am told that it is not. What do we do in cases like this?

Ask Sonny Emdin!

This is going on all the time. My time is running out … [Interjections.]

It’s you chaps in Johannesburg.

You have got a queer sense of humour.

Mr. Chairman, it is not everybody who can buy 100-year old houses and renovate them. To them it might be a joke, but to the people who have to live under these conditions it is not a joke at all.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we may even have to go further. I do not think we have completely covered some of the problems which arise here. I mention them now so that the hon. the Minister can consider them. I refer now to clause 5, which applies section 26, namely the children’s clause, to uncontrolled flats. But as always happens, as soon as you close one loophole, somebody finds another. Section 26 only forbids a person from letting a flat because the intended tenant has children. What is happening now is that one estate agency in Durban, one of the major ones, has now in five cases that I know of given notice to persons who have had children since they have been residents of the flat. The lease allows occupancy by two persons. A young couple gets married and they have a child. There are now three people in the flat, so they are given notice. It is only one estate agency which is doing it at the moment, but it is something which could spread. In one case it was a family which took over a child from their brother or brother-in-law when both parents were killed in an accident and the child became an orphan. The brother and sister-in-law took the child in and they have now been notified that they are breaking their contract because there are now more than the number of persons allowed to live in the flat. They were told to find other accommodation. I have the cases here. I can give them to the hon. the Minister. I do not wish to use personal cases over the floor of the House. I will give the names to the hon. the Minister and he can have them investigated.

I have another one here which involves personal details which I would not like to give. This is a case where a wife was on her own at a time when her husband was away for a while. She was given a batchelor flat. When her husband returned she asked for a bigger fiat but they refused and told her that she had to leave, because with her husband back they were too many for a batchelor flat. I have four specific cases here which I can give to the hon. the Minister. I believe that when extending section 26 we will have to go further and cover the case of people who are already in a flat and who have children. We should allow them a certain, reasonable period while those infants are growing up during which they will not be counted as persons for purposes of occupancy in terms of a lease. Those were the main points I wished to make.

How will you cover a situation where a woman is in a bachelor flat when the husband returns?

No, in this case the woman and her husband were in a double flat. When the husband went away, they gave her temporarily a single flat and said she could go back to the double flat when her husband returned. However, when the husband did return they had in the meantime changed the purpose for which the building was to be used and said that although there was a flat available she could not move back to it and that she had to leave because she was breaching the lease. These are difficult problems.

Surely this is a case where that couple should have looked after their own interest? If they had the right under their contract to go back to the double flat, surely it could not have been refused to them.

Yes, the hon. the Minister is right, but people do not think of these things. They take them at their face value. I do not have a solution for that sort of case and I do not suggest there is a solution. I only mentioned it as one of the practical problems and because it also involved children being counted as persons and increasing the number of persons entitled to occupy a flat. However, the simple case of a young couple having a baby is a different matter. In one case of which I know a couple were given advance notice before the baby was born. The wife came to me a month before she expected the baby and said that she had been told that when this baby was born they would be breaching their lease and would have to move out. These are matters which I believe we must look at more carefully. I welcome the steps that have been taken towards meeting the problem, and I look forward to being able to discuss them in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members for supporting the second reading of this Bill. I should also like to deal immediately with the question of, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) calls it, the intimidation clause. He mentioned a large number of specific instances which he thinks are not covered by this clause. However, I think the last case he mentioned could not be covered by any clause at all. It was a mistake on the part of the lessees.

I accept it.

I think the provisions of this clause go pretty far. We can discuss it further in the Committee Stage. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I am not averse at all to any amendment which he thinks can improve this clause. However, let me draw his attention to the contents of the proposed section 21 (4). It reads as follows—

I want to stress the words “peaceful enjoyment of occupation”. I think that even if the globe above the letter-box is taken out, it is interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of occupation. Therefore I think that this provision is very far-reaching. I am not a legal man: therefore I could not say. Paragraph (a) reads as follows—

This, too, is very far-reaching. I am quite certain that we will get objections from landlords saying that this clause is going far too far. I agree with the hon. member that it does not go too far. This is, of course, a matter which must be settled by the courts and fortunately not by the rent boards.

Par. (b) reads as follows—

I think anything that is done in a block of flats which is ordinarily not really done in a properly run block of flats will be covered by this clause. Paragraph (c) reads as follows—

Anything that does not comply with these provisions is a breach of the law and is subject to a fine not exceeding R200. I listened very carefully to what the hon. member had to say about the question of rent control, especially as far as flats are concerned, because about 98 per cent of his constituency consists of flats. He perhaps knows more about these difficulties than anybody else. I am therefore quite willing to listen to him. We can argue these matters out in the Committee Stage and also under my Vote because I fully realize how difficult it is to meet all these problems.

While I am dealing with that hon. member, I should like to discuss the question of the Golden Mile. The hon. member has approached me very often about people living in that particular area whose rents are being put up and so on. To-day he referred to the person who has a small building there on a valuable piece of land. At times I am at my wits end when these people ask me whether they can demolish their buildings and build a bigger block of flats because the land is so valuable that you can hardly refuse such a request. But by doing that a number of people will be without accommodation and we must then find other accommodation for them. I want to put a suggestion to the hon. member which we can discuss at some other time. I am seriously considering whether in places like the Golden Mile in Durban and the Sea Point sea front in Cape Town we should not try to remove all the people who cannot afford living in those areas and making provision for them elsewhere. I say this because as soon as you apply rent control to the Golden Mile or the flats on the Sea Point beach front, you discourage any investment there because the land is so expensive and it is really useless to try to apply rent control in those areas. My Department is working on the question of the Golden Mile, Sea Point and several other places in the country and I shall let the hon. member know what we intend doing as soon as I have more facts before me. I agree with the hon. member that in the application of rent control it is very difficult always to reach the right decision.

The hon. member for Green Point made the point that as long as you have rent control you discourage investment in houses and flats. That is true but is there anybody in this House who will say to-day that we must abolish rent control? We cannot abolish rent control. It is absolutely impossible. I must be very open with the House and say that we find it very difficult to find the right people to appoint to the Rent Board. We want people with legal knowledge and people with knowledge of land and buildings. It is not so easy to find this type of person to appoint to the Rent Control Board. We are really limited to ex-magistrates and other legal people as far as appointing people to these rent control boards is concerned. The rent control boards have two jobs and I frankly admit that some of these boards do not realize that they have two jobs. One is to protect the tenant and the other is to see that the landlord gets a reasonable return on his money. I received a complaint to-day from the hon. member for Benoni to the effect that the accusation against that rent board is that they only look after the interests of the landlord and put up all the rents when they are asked to do so.

That is not true.

I do not say that it is true. The hon. member promised to bring me details of these cases and I will then go into them. There is nevertheless a tendency, and I think hon. members will agree that it is quite human, that either your sympathy lies with the tenant or your sympathy lies with the landlord. I agree that provision cannot be made for this in legislation and that it is very difficult to get a reasonable solution. During the recess I called together all the rent boards from all over the country as well as the Rent Control Board. I am now referring to all the full-time rent boards and not the part-time rent boards. We had discussions which lasted a whole day and I tried to impress upon them that they have two jobs, that they must not only look after the tenant or the landlord but that they must try to find a balance between the two. I am the first one to admit that that is not very easy.

I disagree with the view of the hon. member for Durban (Point) about the Sectional Titles Bill. It may in the first stages have another loophole as regards making it difficult for certain tenants. But from all the reports I received and from all the reports I received from overseas, it has been found that as soon as people are allowed to buy flats and register them in their names in terms of a law on sectional titles, it becomes one of the main ways of easing the housing problem. All the other ways of buying flats are really illegal and are really ways of circumventing the present law. In Germany, France and especially England this was one of the main methods that assisted in easing the housing problem because people are then very keen to invest in flats knowing that they can get back their money in a very short time. I have pleaded with my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to do everything in his power to ensure that that Bill is passed during this Session.

What will happen to the tenants of a flat somebody wants to buy?

They can be protected. This Bill can be drafted in such a way that the people who are the tenants of a flat cannot be put out as a result of this Bill. I know that it will be difficult but I think it can be done.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I need go any further at this stage. I think that we will have a fairly full discussion of the matter in the Committee Stage and of the whole question of housing under my Vote.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It has become traditional to think of South Africa in terms of a large country of vast expanses with more than enough land. This view was realistic, correct and justified during the country’s pioneering stage—an era which still is within the field of memory of the country’s oldest inhabitants. As occupation occurred, so the subdivision of farms increased, and important factors which contributed, and still do. to injudicious subdivision in the traditional system of testation, the inherent urge of the Afrikaner to own land, land speculation, the high capital requirements of modern farming, especially high land values, the lack of expert advice on land values, poor knowledge on the part of many purchasers of land of the agricultural potential of a farm and the lack of adequate legislation for prohibiting the injudicious and uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land.

The problem of the injudicious subdivision of agricultural land has been receiving attention for many years. From time to time leaders in the field of agriculture and others have expressed their deep concern about this matter. In addition it has been dealt with repeatedly in publications concerning the problems of the agricultural industry, in which the utilization of the soil and the occupation thereof have been raised. Part 1 of the report of the Carnegie Commission on Rural Impoverishment and Rural Exodus of 1932, the report of the Reconstruction Committee of the Department of Agriculture and Forestry of 1943 and the report of the Commission of Enquiry into European Occupancy of the Rural Areas of 1959, are of the more important publications in this connection. Specific attention was drawn to this matter when it was debated in this House on 2nd February, 1962. This led to the appointment of an inter-departmental study group on the uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land, which reported in 1963. Draft legislation in this connection was considered by a select committee of Parliament in 1964.

In view of the fact that this inevitably is legislation of a far-reaching nature in respect of which considerable differences of opinion may exist for obvious reasons, as they, in fact do as is evident from the report of the Select Committee on the Bill, it was thought proper to give the agricultural leaders a further opportunity of discussing the measure. Consequently the Agricultural Advisory Board held full discussions on the matter a year or two ago. This Board was unanimous in its recommendation, i.e. that it has become imperative to control the subdivision of agricultural land by law as soon as possible. The South African Agricultural Union also adopted a unanimous resolution in 1968 in which the Government was urgently requested to take active steps forthwith in order to restrict the fragmentation of agricultural land. Therefore it is clear that the farming community that is most affected by the measure, is urging the necessity of statutory control over the subdivision of agricultural land.

In May, 1968, we appointed an interdepartmental study committee, on which Prof.

J. H. Moolman of the University of South Africa also served, under the chairmanship of Prof. F. R. Tomlinson, to enquire into the entire matter of the utilization of agricultural land. This study committee reported as early as in December of the same year. The Tomlinson study group, like earlier commissions and committees which I have mentioned, also stressed the seriousness of the problem which the subdivision of agricultural land into uneconomic farming units created for the agricultural industry in particular and for the country in general, and urgently recommended the earliest possible passing of suitable legislation in this regard. For the information of hon. members, I may mention here that the other recommendations of the Committee on the Control and the Utilization of Agricultural Land were not accepted as those recommendations involved many other government departments, provincial administrations and other bodies. The Department of Planning, which was established to co-ordinate the physical planning of the country as a whole, and, where necessary, to take over control itself, is the proper department for exercising control in general, in co-operation with the bodies concerned, over the utilization of land. This, however, is an extremely difficult and involved problem which concerns many interests and the development of the country as a whole.

In broad outline the subdivision of land may be dealt with in two categories, i.e. (i) an unorganized, “natural” process which mainly arises from factors such as the system of testation, capital requirements, injudicious credit provision, lack of knowledge, etc. These factors largely gave rise to the subdivision of farms into the present pattern of uneconomic farming units; (ii) an organized process of fragmentation which consists of individuals—often estate agents and speculators in land—buying up farms, dividing them into small-holdings and selling them at enormous profits.

The serious proportions which the fragmentation of agricultural land has assumed, so much so that it may be regarded to-day as one of our major and most difficult agricultural problems, are possibly not fully realized by the public at large. From an economic study that was undertaken two years ago by the Division of Agricultural Marketing Research, it is deduced that a farm ought to yield at least R4.000 in products in order to ensure a decent living for a family. From the census figures it appears that only approximately 44 per cent of the farms in South Africa in respect of which figures do exist, met this requirement in 1962-’63, and this is attributed largely to farming units which are too small.

It is estimated that there are more than 100,0 small-holdings in our country of which more than one-half is in the Transvaal. In two extension regions at Pretoria very few commercial farms are left and the number of small-holdings of all sizes comes to approximately 14,000 at present. The Warm Baths Soil Conservation Committee mentioned in a letter to the Minister of Agriculture in 1967 that as many as 720 small-holdings varying from 10 to 100 morgen in extent, existed in its district, whereas a farm measuring 500 morgen in extent was regarded as the minimum size for a farm under favourable conditions in that district. From a survey that was conducted in the Soetbosveld of the North-Western Transvaal in 1965. it was found that 75 per cent of the number of farms was under 1,500 morgen in extent. From the point of view of cattle farming on its own, approximately 2,000 morgen are regarded as the minimum for an economic unit.

Investigations conducted in other extensive stock-farming areas show the same pattern throughout. In the district Middelburg, Cape, a farm measuring approximately 3,000 morgen in extent is regarded as a minimum economic unit. Approximately 63 per cent of the farms are smaller than this minimum. In the district of Boshoff it has been estimated that approximately 1,600 morgen ought to be the minimum economic size of a farm, whereas approximately 56 per cent of the farms in that district are less than 1,500 morgen in extent. I can proceed in this way and mention numerous other examples.

The Tomlinson Committee mentions in its report that the general deduction may be made from the available data that of the total number of commercial farms in South Africa between 30 per cent and 40 per cent are too small to provide a decent living to the family.

The Commission of Enquiry into European Occupancy of the Rural Areas mentioned, inter alia, in its report of 1959 that the number of small farms were increasing; and that farms had become so small in many cases that there were a number of farmers in certain regions who would be forced from their land. Consequently the commission was of the opinion that subdivision had gone too far in certain parts of the country and that this would definitely promote further depopulation in these parts. Therefore the commission recommended that active steps be taken to consolidate uneconomic units and to prevent the further development of such units.

The Commission on the Occupancy of Rural Areas also gave a detailed exposition of the adverse effects, especially in the economic, agricultural and social spheres, of farms which are too small. What it amounts to in brief is that it will lead to rural poverty in the worst degree. The effect of this is not only that the farmers and their families are suffering financially and have to struggle to keep their heads above water, but also that the soil suffers as much. These small farms usually are overgrazed, choked with noxious or valueless intruding vegetation and badly trampled, with the result that soil erosion assumes alarming proportions on such farms. The farmers on uneconomical farming units do not have the capital for constructing essential soil conservation work. These small farms constitute one of the main causes why we cannot make the desired progress as regards soil conservation.

It is not possible to make full use of the advantages offered by technological development. especially as regards mechanization, on farming units which are too small. In the first place, the farmer cannot afford the expensive farming implements, and, in the second place, such implements cannot be utilized economically on such small units and are therefore not justified financially. As a result high and efficient production cannot be expected from these small farms. Extremely specialized industries such as flower farming, poultry farming, pig farming, etc., are, of course, not taken into consideration in this connection. These specialized industries, which are assuming the character of factory farming, are usually present only a small percentage of our agriculrun in the vicinity of our large cities and retural industry.

The problem of farming units which are small is not peculiar to our own country. In the older Western countries it is one of the factors hampering the progress of the agricultural industry and the cause of rural poverty. Enormous amounts are being spent annually in these countries on the consolidation of land. In view of the fact that it is Government policy to consolidate farming units which are too small, it would be foolish and extremely unwise to allow the further fragmentation of agricultural land to continue unchecked. The consolidation of land is a slow process and requires heavy expenditure, but it is one of the most important aids for placing the agricultural industry on a sound footing. Therefore, the time is more than ripe for appropriate legislation in this connection.

This proposed legislation is undeniably of a far-reaching nature, especially as regards the freedom of land owners. But as is the case with other similar legislation, the interests of the country and those of the community have to be placed above those of the individual, who, through his actions may hamper the progress of the country. This is no new principle, however. because the powers of controlling the subdivision of land in proclaimed controlled areas are already contained in the Natural Resources Act, which was replaced by the Physical Planning Act in 1967. At present the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is advising the Minister of Planning on the subdivision of agricultural land. It is desirable for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services itself to exercise control over the subdivision of agricultural land. Therefore the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has been gaining experience since 1967 in connection with the subdivision of agricultural land and the determination of economic farming units in various parts of the country.

The principal objection to the control of the fragmentation of agricultural land is mainly that it is so difficult to determine when a farm is an economic unit and when it is not, as there are so many factors which determine this. I want to concede that the mere size of a farm does not ensure that a person will derive an income from that farm on which he can exist. What is important in this regard is the physical, economic and sociological factors such as the climate, the agricultural potential or production possibilities, the managerial ability of the farmer, which is very important, the financing of the undertaking, the ratio between the prices of products and the means of production, price trends, the debt burden of the farmer, etc. It is also clear that a unit may be an economic unit under a particular set of circumstances, but if, for example, it changes hands, it need not necessarily still be the case. Therefore the real criterion which is employed in the determination of the minimum sizes of farms, is the net revenue which an average farmer can derive from the farm under normal circumstances. Here it is important to stress “an average farmer” and “normal circumstances”, because as soon as allowance is made for the special person with special knowledge the entire calculation would be valueless. Consequently one would have to act conservatively in this regard. Whereas a farm may be allowed to be smaller for the requirements of a particular person at a certain stage than what would be allowed for the “average farmer”, it might be found subsequently, after the person with the special qualities has sold the farm or fallen away, that the land is too small for an economic unit for the average farmer in the particular region. Similarly, we shall also have to guard against units which are too small during periods of higher prices than those which may be regarded as normal or subsequent to a series of favourable years.

The point of departure is the determination of the minimum extent of land which will under particular circumstances ensure the entrepreneur of average managerial ability an average family revenue which may be deemed adequate. The calculations for any particular unit are made chiefly on the basis of the following technical information;

1. (a) The potential of the various kinds of soil and types of veld as determined by rainfall, climate, soil type, depth, slope, etc., i.e. the production capacity of the arable land and the carrying capacity of the veld;
2. (b) the surface of the various kinds of soil and types of veld with an indication of the desired systems of crop rotation and rotational grazing so that a sound land utilization system may be applied.

On the basis of the aforementioned physical information the total net revenue, in respect of which allowance is made only for farming expenditure, for the unit concerned, is calculated by the application of appropriate economic standards. The economic standard in respect of each facet of the farming industry may be defined as the average net revenue which a group of average farmers will be able to achieve on an average for a few seasons under similar physical and economic circumstances in respect of each facet. The net family revenue is then calculated by decreasing the total net revenue by an allowance for interest and redemption charges on capital at a reasonable rate. The calculated minimum net family revenue is subsequently compared to a revenue norm of R1,500 to R2,000 per annum. This amount has been determined in the light of information obtained about the revenue levels of a number of population groups. Adjustments will probably be necessary in future, because of changed circumstances, but this in itself ought not to give rise to any problems.

The practicability of the proposed method was proved by the then Natural Resources Development Board, established in terms of the Natural Resources Act which was replaced by the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act in 1967, which took its decisions regarding the subdivision of agricultural land on the advice of the Department of Agriculture. As is known, the subdivision of land in certain proclaimed controlled areas which at present include, inter alia, the whole of the Transvaal and the goldfields of the Orange Free State, is subject to the approval of the Minister of Planning. In each case the calculated net revenue criterion is taken as norm for determining whether a piece of land is not becoming too small as a unit for farming purposes.

In view of the fact that testamentary dispositions are probably one of the major causes of uneconomic units in the country, they cannot be left out and have consequently been included under the control of this Act. Any testamentary disposition made by a testator who died prior to the commencement of this Act is being excluded, as its inclusion would be unfair and would cause many problems and delays in finalizing estates. By way of explanation, I should like to point out that joint heirs of land will not be obliged at all times to convert the land into cash. If, however, they were to come to a mutual agreement to utilize the land jointly in some satisfactory manner, there ought to be no objection. Persons who have already decided that coming generations should inherit their land, ought to consider revising their wills, even at this stage. In pursuance of discussions held with various bodies and persons we have deemed fit to effect certain amendments since the introduction of the Bill in the House of Assembly last year. I also made a promise that the take-over of control would be made as convenient as possible and that the public would be accommodated where it is at all possible to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister delivered a speech which was larded with references to so-called investigations which were carried out in the past in respect of uneconomic agricultural units. In his speech the hon. the Deputy Minister also told us a few things about the norm which he thinks will be laid down to determine whether a unit will be economic or not. This he did with reference to the average income of a number of population groups for different types of work. I want to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister definitely did good work in preparing this speech so that he could put his case in this way. I also want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that it will be the task of this side of the House to prove to him that there are a large number of loopholes in his speech in spite of his preparatory work. I want to say immediately that we on this side of this House move the following amendment—

1. (a) confers upon the Minister far-reaching powers with regard to the subdivision of agricultural land, which needlessly interfere with the rights of the individual;
2. (b) leaves the State free to acquire good agricultural land and to use it for non-agricultural purposes; and
3. (c) …

Who says so?

If the hon. member had read the Bill, he would have seen that this is so. The amendment reads further—

This amendment summarizes our objections to this Bill. This legislation has a very long history. As far back as 1962 a discussion in connection with the subdivision of agricultural land was initiated in this House by the present Deputy Minister of Transport. On a later occasion legislation came before this House which also envisaged a board of control, as well as local committees which would help with the subdivision of agricultural land and the norm which would have to be laid down. This then formed the subject of a select committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Ladybrand. After that the committee was converted into a commission of inquiry, which could not complete its work. This commission visited only two places, namely Pretoria and Bloemfontein, where evidence was taken. The following year this question was again referred to a select committee, and the work was completed in that year. This legislation therefore has a long history. If the Government itself could drag on the matter for six years, eight years since 1962, I cannot understand that the urgency has now become so great that the hon. the Deputy Minister thinks that legislation has become necessary. According to the hon. the Deputy Minister dozens of reports emphasizing the urgency of this matter have already been received. The reason why no action was previously taken is, firstly, that legislation which could deal with this to a large extent, was in the hands of the provinces.

Only 25 morgen.

Yes, that is correct. There is also the old Act on the Natural Resources Development Council. This Council had extensive powers. This Act was, however, replaced by the Physical Planning Act in 1967, in terms of which the Minister of Planning has already frozen practically the whole of the Transvaal in respect of the subdivision of agricultural land. In the third place, there is the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act, which was passed as long ago as 1937, and in connection with which Dr. Henning told us a few things before the select committee at the time. He said that where there is unbeneficial occupation of agricultural land and too many people live on a piece of agricultural land, that Act can be used to consolidate and redistribute that piece of land so that people can live on it in such a way that the soil is not exhausted and its value is not reduced.

It was used only once.

But why was it used only once? There is provision for that in the Statute Book. The hon. the Minister, together with the Minister of Planning and the provincial administrations, already has the necessary powers, in terms of the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act to deal with such an evil if it exists. However, let us look at the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech. He said that this is legislation with “far-reaching (in-grypende) powers”. This is exactly what we are saying in our amendment. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that these are “drastic” (verregaande) powers …

The hon. the Deputy Minister did not say “drastic”, but “far-reaching”.

If the hon. member is a linguist, he must tell me what the difference in meaning between “drastic” and “far-reaching” is. Later in his speech the hon. the Deputy Minister said the following —

Then the hon. the Deputy Minister listed the various factors and said the following—

These are all the other factors which play a part in determining whether a unit is an economic one or not.

Do you agree or not?

It is because I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s objections that I am opposed to this Bill. The hon. Deputy Minister is trying to single out only one particular factor. I hope to prove to the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon that uneconomic division is the smallest factor in connection with agricultural problems. If the hon. the Deputy Minister himself can mention these factors which prove how difficult it is, I want to know from him: How difficult will it not be for his Department to implement this legislation in future? I want to tell him that this legislation will be a white elephant on the Statute Book of South Africa, because it will be impossible to implement. If he should dare to implement this legislation, there would be such an agitation on the part of the farmers themselves in South Africa that it would be impossible for him to implement this legislation. Even at this stage I want to predict that when the farmer of South Africa realizes what the implications of this legislation are, the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act of 1970 will stand there, perhaps just like the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act of 1937, and it will not be possible to implement it in South Africa. After all, we have already become used to the fact that the Government blows up a problem out of proportion to its actual size and then tries to prevent it by means of the most far-reaching powers and legislation, merely in order to gain a better grip on the freedom of the individual. Naturally a serious problem will require exceptional and strong action, but how big is this problem of the uneconomic division of agricultural land? Does it take place on such an extensive scale throughout the country, or is it limited to certain parts of the country only? The report on European Occupancy of the Rural Areas mentioned the problem and singled out certain parts of the Northern Transvaal in particular—Soutpans-berg and Marico—as examples of areas where large-scale subdivision, also as a result of bequests, had taken place. But for the rest we have always heard that farms were becoming too large and that the land barons are a danger in South Africa. But now we hear that farms are becoming too small. Which one of the two is in fact the problem? [Interjection.] A noted agriculturist—I am not referring to the hon. member for Fauresmith, because he is no expert on anything—Prof. Tomlinson, declared in 1964 at the land service camp at Roodeplaat (according to Departmental Agricultural News No. 360, 10.7.1964):

Sir, where than is this problem that farmers are subdividing their land on a large scale and are lettting dozens of sons farm on small farms? If 82 per cent of the farms in the Transvaal do not even have one heir, where is the problem?

This Government must realize that the modern farmer will not act as unwisely as was done decades ago when farms were divided in such a way that the land was quite inadequate in extent. The South African farmer realizes full well that if he wants to afford his son a reasonable change in agriculture, and especially under this Government, his land should rather be too large than too small. I do not wish to suggest that there are no, unscrupulous speculators who have deceived many on the pretext that what they are offering for sale constitute economic units on which an enterprising farmer can make a living. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself mentioned that there are 100,000 small-holdings in the Transvaal, 14,000 of which are in the vicinity of Pretoria. Many of those people were definitely deceived over the years, but most of the people who are deceived in this way are not bona fide farmers. In any case, what State assistance is there for this type of man? There is absolutely no State assistance for this type of man. According to this side of the House there are most definitely very few bona fide farmers who are deceived in this way.

Who deceives them?

I do not think I have to repeat it. I said that they were deceived by speculators and persons of that type.

You did not say it was speculators.

Yes, I mentioned them. One of the most difficult problems is to determine what an economic unit is. After all, when determining what an economic unit is, one must have a norm which has been scientifically established. [Interjections.] I cannot do that, and therefore I am opposed to this legislation, but I want to show the hon. member how difficult it is. One farmer’s standard of living requires R200 a month, for example, the next perhaps R400 a month or more and No. 3 perhaps R50 a month. Every case will therefore have to be considered individually and on its own merits. Sir, what will the result of this be? Before A divides his land to give it to B and C, he will have to furnish proof—in this case he will have to furnish proof to the hon. the Minister— that the proposed division is economic because his income was such that both B and C will both be assured of a decent income. We know that the farmer will hesitate to give this information to the Receiver of Revenue. So much the more will he hesitate to give this information to the hon. the Minister. However, the main problem will arise when a farm or a piece of land seems to be economic and becomes uneconomic as a result of circumstances, and vice versa. I want to mention some examples. There are many such cases which are obvious. Take, for example, the export grapes of nearby De Doorns and Paarl. Today a good living can be made on a very small piece of land, but what will happen if there is a sudden slump in the world market price? Will their farms then become uneconomic units? For example, what a fantastic change has not been made in the yields in agronomy as a result of scientific progress? Many of those agricultural units might have been considered uneconomic 15 to 20 years ago. Can the same mistakes not be made by the hon. the Minister in the future? Can his views not be proved quite wrong by future developments? And what would the hon. the Minister have done in the meanwhile? He would have prevented our industry from being enriched by the entry of possibly progressive farmers. Only on account of certain circumstances at a given moment he would have said: Agriculture is uneconomic now. Therefore farmers may not divide. Therefore farmers must see to it that their sons obtain employment elsewhere. But just a year or two afterwards, as a result of changed circumstances, that land might become so economical that two or three persons could make a living on it. How is it possible to lay down a norm for determining what is an economic unit and what is not?

The problem which worries everyone today, except the Government apparently, is that the rural areas are becoming depopulated of white people. One of the most adverse effects of this legislation will be that it will result in fewer farmers being established on our land. This legislation is in fact designed to place obstacles in the way of such aspiring farmers. It would have been a major problem if this Government were saddled with an increasing number of farmers for whom there was no land. If this were the case, I would have been able to understand that the hon. the Minister had a problem, but in the past 15 to 20 years alone the number of farmers in South Africa dropped by at least 3,000 a year. But now it seems to me as if the Government is not proud enough of its record in connection with the reduction of the number of farmers over the past 22 years. Now this must be artificially stimulated by preventing farmers from bequeathing land to their sons before all doubt has been removed about the possibility of earning a living on that land. What modern father is still so thoughtless as to bind a son to a piece of land on which making a living has become a doubtful matter? And if there are any, are they sufficient in number to justify interference by the State in every testamentary bequeathal of agricultural land? Once this legislation has been accepted, nobody will be able to make a will about the subdivision of agricultural land before that will has been submitted to the hon. the Minister. What we on this side of this House want to know is whether these implications of this legislation have been explained to the farmers of South Africa. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet is a typical backbencher. He makes a big noise to show that he is also in this House. When we had a commission of inquiry in this connection previously, we put this same question to Mr. Chris Cilliers and also to Mr. De la Harpe de Villiers. Both of them admitted that, when it came to the subdivision Of agricultural land, interference in bequests would not be desirable and would not be welcomed by the farmers of South Africa. This legislation amounts to this, that a farmer cannot do what he wants with his property. Other people will be able to set aside his most intimate decisions—which is, after all, what his wishes as expressed in his will are. Sir, a persons last wish has always been regarded with the greatest respect, and thus far no sound argument has been advanced, either on the committee or before the commission or by the hon. Minister as to why a farmer’s testamentary disposition must first be submitted to the Minister before it can be valid. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Do we expect this from the businessman; do we expect it from the merchant; do we expect it from the professional man or from the industrialist? Why this discrimination against the farmer of South Africa?

They hate the farmers (hulle is boerehaters).

That is a fallacious argument.

Admittedly there are farmers whose heirs must be protected, but the protection can just as well be afforded by means of education and correct guidance being provided to the testator by the Department. This is what Mr. Sevenster says, and he was Secretary to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Before the passing of the Agricultural Credit Act he was also chairman of the Farmers’ Assistance Board. What did he say in paragraph 30 on page 17 of the report? He said—

There the hon. the Minister has the answer in dealing with such a matter. It is a strange coincidence that when uneconomic units are being discussed, it is usually said that high land prices must be linked with it. But on a previous occasion the hon. the Minister also received an effective reply from Mr. De la Harpe de Villiers, the chairman of the South African Agricultural Union, when Mr. De Villiers said that the price of land had little to do with the profitability of farming, but can rather be influenced by other factors, such as inflation and depreciation in the value of money. The Government is, of course, in trouble. The Government’s policy in connection with the prices of products results in a poor dividend to the farmer on his investment, and at the end of the financial year the farmer compares the poor dividend he receives on his large investment with what he would have received in any other sector, and then he obviously feels dissatisfied. The Government fully realizes this and thinks that the price land is artificially high, and what is it now trying to do with this legislation? This too was envisaged for us by Dr. Henning when he gave evidence before the committee and said that one of the effects of this legislation would be that it would force down the price of land.

Is that advantageous to the farmer or not?

I will give the hon. member a reply to that if he will only give me a chance. These matters are fully realized by the Government, and that is why they think that the price of land is artificially high, and now they are also trying to force down the price of land artificially by discouraging the division of land and in this way reducing the demand. Sir, while continuing to follow a weak policy in regard to the prices of products, they can then suggest to the farmer that he is receiving a large dividend on his investment because his capital investment is less. This legislation will result in the price of agricultural land in the interior being forced down artificially. [Time expired.]

The hon. the Minister dealt with this Bill at such length that I do not have much to say about it. However, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Newton Park. Having listened here to the hon. member for Newton Park, we realized more and more that although the hon. member discussed agriculture here, he had become a real city-dweller, and it is in fact for that reason that he is representing Newton Park. The hon. member is concerned about the inroads this Bill will make on the rights of the individual.

The Minister admitted it.

Sir, to a certain extent all the laws of the country are making inroads on the rights of the individual—not only this Bill. This applies to all laws, and laws are made for the benefit of the country and the people. The hon. member said that one could not determine an economic unit in terms of the yardstick used in this Bill. After all, one cannot simply draw a line through the country and say that so many morgen will be regarded as an economic unit and that anything smaller than that will be regarded as an uneconomic unit. After all, this would be foolishness. What constitutes an economic unit, will have to be determined on its own merits in every part of the country.

Do you have the staff to do it?

Yes. The hon. member said that this Bill was not a practical measure as the Government had for several years been trying to straighten out this Bill for introduction in this House, but with such an Opposition, which puts forward such absurd proposals, it is to be understood that it will take time. Sir, in this respect, too, we are dealing with an Opposition which is opposed to this legislation here in this House, but when they attend meetings of the agricultural unions outside, they agree with it.

Who did that?

There have been instances where certain Opposition members agreed with agricultural unions that legislation against the subdivision of land had to be introduced. They agreed with it.

With the principle.

If that is the case, let hon. members of the Opposition help to improve the Bill so that it will work properly. Sir, to prove that the hon. member for Newton Park has adopted the attitude of the city-dweller entirely, I want to point out that he wants the fragmentation of land surrounding the major cities and towns to go on, for there are certain organisations which are making money out of it. People are so quick to say that a man living in the city would like to have 25 or 50 morgen to live on so that he may retain his sense of living in a rural area. Sir, it is unhealthy for the country that one person should own 25 or 50 morgen of agricultural land merely to live on. This will have the effect that the country will eventually not be able to produce enough for its inhabitants. The hon. member said that this measure would be a white elephant. My reply is that many members on the Opposition side will in the course of time be white elephants in the constituencies they are representing now.

Especially in the rural areas.

The hon. member for Newton Park intimated here a moment ago that he would see to it that farmers would not be satisfied with this measure. In other words, he wants to incite the farmers outside against this legislation. He said one should not dictate to a farmer what he was to do; one should not interfere with his rights. The hon. member knows that the farmers who are able to think for themselves, agree with this legislation because they can see where it is leading to, and that our farming population is going to become like the farming population in many European countries, where the fragmentation of land took place on such a large scale that the majority of those farmers became peasants. We are not keen to have that position in this country. With the subdivision of land there is so much fragmentation that it renders each of those parts uneconomic. Sometimes there is a fair-sized farm which may perhaps be subdivided into two or three parts, but instead of doing that, it is fragmented into eight parts, and then they are cut up into thin strips so that everybody has a piece of land bordering on the river. This means that the whole farm has been fragmented to such an extent that none of those subdivisions is worth anything. The hon. member also wanted to know what would happen at De Dooms, where the farms are so small, if grapes could no longer be exported. The hon. member may just as well say that if the skies should fall, all of us would die. He wants to spread scary stories amongst the farmers, but I can tell him that they will not meet with approval.

I think it is time we also learnt some of the lessons learnt in the older countries. In Holland, for instance, we have the subdivision of land, “verkaveling” as they call it. This had assumed such grave proportions that the State had to intervene, and this they call the “herverkaveling”, i.e. re-subdivision. The Dutch state made it its object to eliminate the defective agricultural structure where it occurred and represented an obstacle to the implementation of effective and economic farming practice, and to bring about at the same time an improvement in the social standing of the farming communities in question. The combination of those small farms also raises the social standing of the farmer. Although the Opposition has always said that the farmers cannot make a reasonable living, they do not want to assist in preventing them from living on farms where the income is too small. This objective in the Netherlands is being accomplished by means of the consolidation of land. The process of land consolidation includes for the most part a general reconstruction and renewal of the agricultural districts. Fragmented farming units are consolidated. Small, uneconomic farms are enlarged and, where possible, converted into economic farms. Roads and canals are realigned and rebuilt, and drainage and water utilization, etc., are canalized. The evacuation of small, uneconomic units is promoted and encouraged in that it is possible for the owner of such a piece of land to sell it to the State on relatively favourable conditions. The land made available in this manner, is then used for enlarging the remaining small farming units.

There we have a country which is much older than ours and which permitted this fragmentation of land, and now it is costing that State a tremendous amount of money to bring those fragmented pieces of land together again. Would the Opposition like us to leave this matter to posterity, when the land will already have been fragmented and it will cost the State thousands of millions of rands to consolidate those fragmented pieces of land once again? Just think of what the extent of this was in a small country such as Holland. They said that views on the necessity and need for consolidation had progressively changed since a start had been made with this programme. In 1937 it was considered that 500,000 hectares or roughly 22 per cent of the arable land of the Netherlands was in need of consolidation, but as time went by there was such a considerable increase in the extent of this area that it is being accepted at present that land consolidation is urgently required on an area of approximately 1.5 million hectares. As long ago as 1937 they saw that this was necessary, but they failed to do something about it, as the Opposition also wants this country to do, and then it increased from 500,000 hectares in 1937 to 1.5 million hectares in 1963.

There are many other matters which I should like to mention, for the Opposition takes the view that the farmer should be allowed to do as he pleases; to farm as he pleases. But once he lands in financial difficulties, that farmer applies to the State for assistance, and if the State does not help him 100 per cent, we hear this Opposition complaining again that the State is not rendering enough assistance to the farmer. If we want to take a further look at what is happening in Holland, we shall see that to enable the State to control this state of affairs, it will virtually have to peg the price of land so as to prevent it from rising out of proportion with the price of agricultural produce.