Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, it is customary to submit amendments to the First Schedule of the Defence Act by way of resolution when changes have to be effected. These proposed amendments are fairly technical in nature and this being so, I have taken the liberty to consult beforehand with hon. members on both sides of the House who are interested in Defence. Consequently I take it that the proposals may be regarded as agreed measures. Nevertheless, I just want to give a few brief explanations.

The proposed amendments to the First Schedule serve to make a few corrections and to make the existing legislation more comprehensive, as in clauses 1 (a), 4, 5 and 7 as well as in clauses 8 and 10 in the Afrikaans version and clause 9 in the English version. Moreover, it is proposed to relieve the administrative burden and to effect improvements where necessary.

Clause 1 (b) is a new clause enabling the Commandant-General to empower the Chief of Defence Staff to exercise the powers of a Chief of Staff in regard to units not falling under any particular section of the Defence Force, as for example the Military Academy. The Military Academy performs joint service as far as training is concerned and should therefore fall under the Chief of the Defence Staff rather than under some other Chief of a section of the Defence Force.

Clause 2 merely relieves an administrative burden. We believe this will expedite the disposal of business. Clause 3 envisages in the composition of a general court martial to take into account only those officers to whom commissioned rank has been granted by the State President, in other words, to whom permanent commissioned rank and not temporary commissioned rank has been granted. Clause 6 provides for the exceptional cases where privates who have received suspended sentences of detention, are subsequently promoted to non-commissioned rank. In the case of such a promotion the suspended sentence will, in fact, now fall away, because otherwise it would entail a further trial and demotion, in that only privates may be sentenced to detention. In any case, promotion ought to indicate that such a member has rehabilitated himself.

Clause 8 (this is clause 9 in the Afrikaans version) relieves the administrative burden of the State President by assigning to the Minister the power of establishing detention barracks. This clause also removes an obstacle in section 120 (2), so that any sentence of detention imposed by either a civil or a military court may be served in a detention barracks.

The last clause, clause 10 (this is clause 11 in the Afrikaans version), does away with a provision which is redundant as a result of the provisions of section 87 (1) (g), in terms of which regulations have already been issued in regard to the performance of police duties by members of the South African Defence Force, in which the South African Military Police Corps is included by implication. Provision has been made for this in the regulations.

As hon. members know, the proposed amendments are, as I have said, fairly technical in nature, and it is difficult for me to say any more about them.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will support the motion. As the hon. the Minister has said, these are technical matters. What they prove, perhaps more than anything, is that even if you put a uniform onto a legally trained man, he still finds hairs to split. I must admit that in listening to some of the explanations before this measure came before us, I found it difficult to understand that even lawyers could find it necessary to argue some of the issues. What this measure also shows, is the importance and the value of consultation. As the original proposals were drafted this side of the House would not have supported some of them, but it would not have been, I believe, in the interests of the Defence Force to have had the sort of argument that might have arisen. By discussion and consultation, however, we were able to iron out those difficulties. I would like to say to the Minister that I believe it was in the interests of the Defence Force that he acted as he did by withdrawing the one clause. We are able now to have full agreement on the matter before us, which we support.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

At present the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is administering two provident funds for the staff of research, cultural, educational and State-aided institutions. The one provident fund is the Technical Colleges Provident Fund established in terms of the Higher Education Act of 1923 to provide retirement benefits to the staff of the said colleges. The other provident fund, i.e. the University Institutions Provident Fund, was established in terms of the Higher Education Additional Provision Act of 1917, as subsequently substituted by sections 19 and 29 of the Universities Act, 1955, to make provision for retirement benefits to such staff.

As the above mentioned funds make inadequate provision, except in the case of staff whose service commenced prior to 1950, the Associated Institutions Pension Fund was established in terms of Act No. 41 of 1963, and members of the said two provident funds were allowed to elect to become members of this pension fund or to remain members of the old provident fund. Some members of the provident funds, especially those whose service commenced prior to 1950, elected to remain members of the provident funds.

For the purposes of legislation the above-mentioned research, cultural, educational and State-aided institutions are defined as “associated institutions”.

The present position is that only persons appointed to the service of an associated institution in a temporary capacity or on contract for a particular period may be allowed to become members of the University Institutions Provident Fund. Therefore, the only new members this fund can acquire are temporary staff and persons performing contract service. This provident fund was not designed for this purpose, but after the establishment of an associated institutions pension fund, it was found necessary to canalize the said staff to one provident fund. The result is that no new members can be admitted to the Technical Colleges Provident Fund. Consequently it stands to reason that the membership of both these provident funds is decreasing progressively.

The matter has been reviewed, and in view of the fact that the conditions of the two funds are more or less in agreement, legislation is being proposed herewith mainly to authorize—

1. 1. the disestablishment of the two old existing provident funds, as proposed in clause 2;
2. 2. the establishment of an associated institutions provident fund which will take over the assets, liabilities, obligations, and members of the two aforementioned provident funds (which will be disestablished), as provided for in clauses 3, 4 and 5;
3. 3. the fixing, for the sake of uniformity, of ages for retirement of members of the new fund, as embodied in clause 7;
4. 4. the making of regulations in respect of the control and management of the new fund, the payment of contributions by members and by employing bodies to the fund and the payment of benefits to members from the fund, the conditions on which such payments are to be made, and the protection of the rights of members who joined prior to 1950 and who are entitled to the payment of certain additional benefits from revenue—here I am referring to clause 8—and
5. 5. the repeal or amendment, in terms of clause 12, of the enabling legislation in terms of which the funds exist at present.

Clause 6 provides, inter alia, that it is compulsory for members of the old funds, who were contributors to an old fund on the day prior to the coming into operation of the new Act, to become members of the new fund, with the exception of persons who were entitled on that date to the payment of a benefit or an additional benefit. Subsection (4) of clause 6 releases members of the old provident funds or non-contributing members who were entitled to benefits from those funds, from all their rights and obligations towards those funds when they become members of the new fund.

As far as clause 10 is concerned, I want to point out that with effect from 1st October, 1970, approval was given for the existing 100 per cent housing loan scheme for public servants to be applicable on the same conditions to the staff of certain State-aided institutions. Amongst others, bodies with staff contributing to the aforementioned two provident funds are included in this scheme. The council of such an institution has to provide the necessary guarantees. In order to safeguard the councils concerned as far as possible against losses which may be suffered under the guarantees, provision has to exist in terms of which the amounts of such guarantees may be deducted from the benefits which become payable from the funds at the termination of service of members. These clauses seek to undo those provisions in so far as they concern amounts due by a beneficiary of the new fund, such as, inter alia, guarantees provided in respect of housing loans, to his relevant council; otherwise, he will be able to demand the benefits of the new fund without meeting his obligations in that respect.

I refer once again to temporary staff or persons appointed to the service of an associated institution on contract. Section 3 (1) (b) of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund Act, 1963 (Act No. 41 of 1963), provides that such persons appointed to the service of an associated institution referred to in that Act after the coming into operation of that Act may be allowed to become a member of the old University Institutions Provident Fund. Since that fund is now going to disappear, it is necessary to amend the relevant provisions, as is being proposed in clause 11, so as to allow such a person to become a member of the new fund. The need to prohibit persons appointed to the service of an associated institution in a temporary capacity, as laid down in section 3 (1) (c) of the aforementioned Act, from becoming members of the old Technical College Provident Fund, also falls away now as the last-mentioned fund will now cease to exist.

In view of the fact that only members of the old provident funds and temporary and contractual staff of associated institutions are allowed to become members of the new fund, the membership of the new fund will be very limited and will most likely decrease more and more in the course of time. Many of those members who hold permanent appointments at an associated institution, as defined in the 1963 legislation, could have become members of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund established in terms of that Act, had they elected to do so. Their natural home actually is the Associated Institutions Pension Fund. However, as happens only too often, many of them elected to remain members of the old provident funds, without their having gone properly into the matter, only to find later that that was not the best choice. This, however, is a golden opportunity of affording them another chance to elect to become members of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund. They are being afforded such a choice in terms of clause 13 (1). I want to address an appeal to all persons belonging to those provident funds to look into the matter once again and to take a decision which will be to their own advantage. The provision in that clause that persons who now elect to become members of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund shall be deemed to have exercised such an election in terms of the regulation referred to therein, merely ensures that they and those who previously elected to become members of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund will receive equal treatment under the Act.

These are the details of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill. This Bill will undoubtedly be an improvement to the existing position. Where there are two provident funds, namely the Technical Colleges Provident Fund and the University Institutions Provident Fund. As the hon. the Minister has said in moving the Second Reading, this Bill will now disestablish those two funds and will create the new fund which will be known as the Associated Institutions Provident Fund.

When one considers legislation of this nature one obviously studies the provisions very carefully to ensure that those persons who are members of existing funds which are to be disestablished have their rights fully protected in terms of the amending legislation and amending regulations which will be forthcoming and form part of this measure. We are satisfied that this Bill is to the benefit of the members of these two provident funds. In 1963 when the Associated Institutions Pension Act was discussed in this House we also gave that legislation our full support as we believe it is most important to ensure that the staff of these institutions have full protection as regards being able to belong to a provident fund in the case of a person in temporary employment and, in the case of a person in permanent employment, to belong to a pension fund.

There are one or two matters in terms of this Bill which perhaps require greater clarification at the Committee Stage. There are however two aspects on which I think the hon. the Minister can give a little more information. I should like the hon. the Minister to give the House a little further information with regard to the disestablishment of these funds and the transfer of their assets and liabilities. Can the hon. the Minister indicate to the House as to whether any actuarial valuation has recently been undertaken to ascertain the financial standing and position of these funds? We have had previous legislation whereby funds have been disestablished and new funds have been formed, and we have since found that many of these funds are showing very large deficits indeed and that steps have to be taken to subsidize them in order to rectify the situation.

Sir, the other matter is the question of election. In terms of clause 13 persons have the right, if they are in permanent employment to elect to become a member of the central fund. Here a second opportunity is to be afforded to those persons who subsequently regretted not having joined the Associated Institutions Pension Fund at that time. Here I believe it is important that the persons concerned should be made fully aware of what their new rights will be should they elect to join the new fund. We have had cases where persons in Government employ have been transferred, from provincial employment, for instance, where they belonged to other pension funds, to some other department. Those persons were given the right to elect to join the new fund or to remain a member of the previous or the existing fund. In one particular case that I can cite the persons concerned received one interpretation of the legislation from the Department of Education and a contradictory opinion from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Sir, this places these members in a quandary as to whether they should exercise their right to elect to join such a new fund. I feel therefore that the hon. the Minister should ensure that members should be fully informed, through the respective councils which are in control of these funds, as to their benefits and as to the protection they have when they make the election which they are called upon to make. I would like to suggest that perhaps a period, which is permitted in terms of subsection (4) of clause 13, whereby the person is given 90 days to make such an election, should be extended. Although provision is made that the Secretary may in exceptional circumstances approve of a longer period, I would like to suggest for the hon. the Minister’s consideration that perhaps we should allow a longer period so that those persons who may be away for various reasons or who may be on long leave, will have an opportunity to elect within the prescribed period. In terms of the existing provision it is 90 days. I believe that the hon. the Minister would be acting in the interest of the members if he granted them more time—perhaps 180 days —to make the election. I do not like using the terms “90 days” and “180 days” because they have a special connotation in this House, but in this case I believe it would be in the interest of the members if they were given a period to enable them to consider fully their rights in terms of the old pension fund and their rights as members of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund as provided for in clause 13 of this Bill. I hope, Sir, that these matters will receive due consideration from the hon. the Minister.

I want to thank the hon. member for his support of this measure and I want to give him the assurance that due consideration will be given to the aspects he raised here, and that I shall say more about them during the Committee Stage. As regards the question of giving full information to these people, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that this is in fact one of the matters which are constantly being experienced. When people have the choice of remaining a member of an old fund or becoming a member of a new fund, everything possible is done to inform them fully. We find so often that they return a few years later and say that in spite of all the information at their disposal, they have nevertheless made the wrong choice. In that case petitions are addressed to Parliament which are submitted to the Select Committee in order to rectify matters. Because of our experience in this regard I can give the hon. member the assurance that we shall go into this in detail and shall, as far as possible, make full details available to these people so as to assist them in the election they exercise.

As regards the question of 90 days and 180 days, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that if this will not cause administrative problems, I shall be prepared to give them all 180 days. It seems to me that this will be better under the circumstances. We shall definitely go into the matter, and if this cannot be done, I shall give the hon. member further information in this regard during the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the principal object of the amendments proposed in this Bill is to streamline and facilitate the administration of the Aliens Act, 1937.

As hon. members know, section 3 of the Act provides for the appointment of an Immigrants Selection Board by the State President. However, the conditions of their appointment, for example, their period of office, remuneration and allowances have to be prescribed by way of regulation. This is a cumbersome and time-consuming procedure which was discontinued in similar legislation years ago. The object of the proposed amendment is that the State President shall determine the period of office of members at the time of their appointment, while their remuneration, allowances and leave privileges shall be determined by the responsible Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance according to the present practice, in respect of similar bodies appointed in terms of other Acts. Clause 1 (6) provides for the Secretary for Immigration to determine the times and places of meetings of the board, instead of this being done by the board itself. This is essential because the responsible accounting officer should be able to exercise control over the financial and administrative implications which may arise from the determination of the times and places of the meetings of the board.

In terms of section 4 of the Act, the application form for permanent settlement and the residence permit has to be prescribed by way of regulation. Similarly, the way in which and the channels through which the application has to be submitted to the board shall also be prescribed by regulation. It has for many years been the practice that administrative forms which have to be adapted continually to suit changing circumstances are not prescribed in such a cumbersome way. The proposed amendment in clause 2 makes provision for the Secretary for Immigration to prescribe the form and to make it available to applicants, while the procedure to be followed in the submission of applications to the board is now being written into the Act.

†Since the Aliens Amendment Act, 1967, was approved in this House, the validity of a permanent residence permit is limited to six months from the date of issue thereof, unless it is extended in the manner provided for in the Act. Permits issued before the coming into operation of that Act are, however, not affected by that provision. Aliens in possession of such permits can therefore still claim entrance into the Republic in order to take up permanent residence in spite of the fact that they may, in the meantime, have become undesirable immigrants on account of changed circumstances. The object of clause 2 (d) is to eliminate this deficiency.

Section 8 of the Act authorizes the cancellation of a permit issued on an application containing incorrect information. The proposed extension of this provision to include a permit, the validity of which was extended on an application containing incorrect information is, for obvious reasons, essential.

The same section of the Act requires that a notice of cancellation of a permit shall contain an order that the holder thereof shall leave the Republic within a stipulated period. The function to order a person to leave the Republic is, however, vested in my colleague, the Minister of the Interior. The proposed amendment therefore only seeks to confirm this position. If a permit is cancelled it becomes null and void from the date specified in the notice of cancellation and the holder thereof cannot legally remain in the country thereafter unless his sojourn is authorized by the Department of the Interior in terms of section 5 of the Act.

Sir, this Bill has the support of the official Opposition at the second reading. As the hon. the Minister has said, it is designed principally to make the administration of the Act, particularly that part of it which relates to the Immigration Selection Board, easier of administration. We can quite understand the necessity for the amendment relating to an extension of the period of validity of a permit referred to in Clause 3. We can quite understand the reasons advanced by the hon. the Minister for the change. We can also quite understand the greater convenience of allowing decisions regarding the meetings of boards and the places at which they shall meet to be made by the Secretary rather than by the Board itself. I may say that at the Committee Stage we have one or two questions we would like to put to the hon. the Minister in regard to clause 1 relating to whether or not it is desirable that the terms of office and the conditions applicable thereto should be dealt with as proposed in the amendment rather than by regulation, which is the position at the present time. But as I say, that is a matter which is best dealt with at the Committee Stage and we support the Second Reading of the Bill.

I thank the hon. member for his support. I can assure him that we will go into the matter in the Committee Stage and I will be only too pleased to help if possible.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill proposes to make the National Welfare Act, 1965, applicable in the territory of South-West Africa.

At the moment South-West Africa has a welfare board which was established in terms of the Welfare Organizations Ordinance, 1965 (Ordinance No. 33 of 1965), and which functions individually but nevertheless parallel to the National Welfare Board of the Republic. That Ordinance is to be repealed by this legislation. Consequently the Welfare Board of the territory will be dissolved. In the application of the National Welfare Act in the territory, a regional welfare board must be established for the territory in terms of section 10 of the Act. This new regional welfare board will automatically receive representation on the National Welfare Board, because the Act provides that at least one nominated person from each region shall be appointed to the National Board by the Minister.

It is foreseen that the inhabitants of the territory can only benefit by this new development, because the new regional welfare board will now be able to share in the commissions which have been appointed for specific matters. In this respect I am thinking inter alia, of the social work and family life commissions appointed in terms of the National Welfare Act. The progress made in these fields can greatly benefit the territory. Seen from a social angle, participation for the territory in the welfare planning commission can promote uniformity and progress.

It would be appropriate if at this stage I referred briefly to the provisions contained in the various clauses of the Bill.

With a view to the application of the National Welfare Act, 1965, in the territory of South-West Africa, it is essential that certain definitions in the Act be amended and other definitions be added. For example, the reference to the Wage and Industrial Conciliation Ordinance, 1952, of the territory is essential because our Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956, is not applicable there and that Ordinance is the equivalent of the said Act.

I should like to explain clause 2 in detail to hon. members. As may be readily appreciated, a number of welfare organizations in South-West Africa are registered there in terms of the Ordinance which is now being repealed. In the application of our Act in the territory, it is therefore essential to provide explicitly for the continuation of those organizations, otherwise they would cease to exist when the Ordinance is repealed. We are doing this in terms of the new section 16 (2) (a) being inserted in terms of this clause. This means, however, that subsection (1) of section 16 of the National Welfare Act must be suitably amended by, inter alia, the insertion therein of the words “or deemed to be registered”.

Welfare organizations at present registered in the Republic may not collect contributions in the territory unless they are specially authorized to do so in terms of the existing Ordinance. For understandable reasons, the Welfare Board of the territory would like to retain this protection, as welfare organizations of the territory may otherwise possibly be prejudiced financially. Since the Republic will include the territory as well after this Bill has been passed, it is necessary to make explicit provision for the protection required by the Welfare Board. It is accordingly being provided that no registered welfare organization in the territory may collect contributions unless its certificate specifically authorizes it to do so. The right of organizations at present registered in the territory to continue collecting contributions there is being retained. However, the certificates of organizations registered in respect of South-West Africa after the passing of the amending Bill will have to be suitably endorsed.

When the new Act comes into operation, however, there will be organizations which are the holders of some or other temporary permit to collect contributions there. Their rights are likewise being retained.

I shall now refer to clause 3. As has been explained, welfare organizations at present registered in the Republic may not collect funds in the territory. The Ordinance now to be repealed, however, provides that they may in fact do so if they are authorized to do so, but the authority can only be granted if the welfare organization concerned renders a real service to the territory and its people. This provision is being retained by this clause.

In addition, the Bill contains a few consequential provisions. Since the existing Act refers only to a law society of a province, it is necessary to include the law society of the territory as well.

I now return to the application of the National Welfare Act which necessitates the repeal of the Welfare Organizations Ordinance, 1965, of the territory.

As a result of the application of the National Welfare Act in the territory, the Welfare Board of the territory as hon. members have been informed, will be dissolved and a regional welfare board will have to be established for the territory in terms of section 10 of the Act. In order to be able to do this, the preparation of a nomination list in terms of section 15 of the Act is necessary. However, since the territory is at the moment nominating persons for appointments to the Welfare Board whose period of office would normally have terminated on 31st October, 1971, provision is now being made for names of persons now nominated to be used for the composition of the regional welfare board of the territory. This procedure will enable the Minister to constitute a new regional board for the territory without delay.

In addition, the Bill contains provisions which are merely aimed at validating actions performed in terms of the Ordinance to be repealed.

In conclusion, I want to give hon. members the assurance that the Welfare Board of the territory has been consulted in regard to the application of the National Welfare Act in the territory and that the board has given its full support to the proposed steps.

We on this side of the House support this Bill, which extends the provisions of the National Welfare Act of 1965 to South-West Africa on a fully integrated basis, a fact which will facilitate the overall planning of the welfare services. Whilst mentioning this point of extending the principle of welfare organizations and welfare legislation to South-West Africa, I want to say the definition contained in clause 1 seems really to repeat itself and that perhaps it would be easier if the definition of “Republic” was merely stated as being that the Republic includes the territory of South-West Africa. As we see the Bill now, there is a further definition that the territory means the Territory of South-West Africa. However, the principal Act, Act No. 79 of 1965, the National Welfare Act, is a comprehensive piece of legislation which at the time that Act was debated in this House was given a full discussion, and we on this side of the House regarded it as being an important stepping-stone in the planning of our welfare services in the Republic, with the establishment of the welfare boards and the regional boards and the four commissions that were referred to by the hon. the Minister. It would appear from the provisions that the existing organizations in South-West Africa, having been registered in terms of the ordinance that is now to be repealed in terms of this legislation are fully satisfied that their interests will be protected and, indeed, that their operation will be extended and that they will have an opportunity of having representation on the National Board, as well as on the various commissions, that are undertaking important work, such as the Welfare Organizations Commission, the Social Work Commission, the Family Life Commission and the Welfare Planning Commission. The only question we would like to ask the Minister is whether with the constitution of these commissions his intention is to grant representation to the people from South-West Africa on a more or less immediate basis, or whether these people will have an opportunity of being considered in terms of the nomination list as referred to in clause 6 of this Bill, when those commissions are reconstituted when their period of office expires.

The various provisions of the principal Act are very wide and very comprehensive. It is therefore with our support that the provisions of that principal Act are now extended to South-West Africa. This will ensure the extension of those services in that territory. We fully support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the representatives of South-West Africa in this House, I want to welcome the legislation now before us. It is an important milestone in the history of South-West Africa, because in the field of social problems South-West Africa will in future be able to draw from the greater and wider experience which has been accumulated in this regard in the Republic. As we know, in regard to the regulation of social welfare matters South-West Africa is a very young country which is virtually still in its infancy. The legislation we have here today is something which has become highly necessary for that area.

In passing. I just want to refer to the other Bills of the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions which appear on the Order Paper, namely the Aged Persons Amendment Bill, the War Veterans Pensions Amendment Bill, the Blind Persons Amendment Bill and the Disability Grants Amendment Bill. I do not want to discuss them, but I merely want to say that we welcome all of them because they will henceforth be made applicable to South-West Africa as well. We welcome these Bills.

Sir, I want to thank the hon. member for Middelland for the support he has given these measures on behalf of South-West Africa. I want to assure him that, as in many other fields, we should like to make our experience and knowledge in this regard available to South-West Africa.

†I should also like to thank the hon. member for Umbilo for his kind words in this regard. I want to assure him that we appreciate the Opposition’s support for this measure. We believe that this is a step forward as regards co-ordinating the welfare services of South Africa, and that South-West Africa will benefit by being included in the provisions of this legislation.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Commission of Enquiry into South-West Africa Affairs made certain recommendations in its report, tabled here on 27th January, 1964, which would result in a re-adjustment of administrative and financial relations between the Republic and South-West Africa. The said recommendations were contained mainly in Chapter V of the Commission’s report. It was recommended. inter alia, that the Welfare Services Division should be transferred from the Administration of South-West Africa to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. In consequence of this report the Government decided, inter alia, to repeal the Social Pensions Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2 of 1965, and to introduce legislation in order to implement this decision of the Government.

Ever since 1st April, 1969, social pensions payable in terms of the ordinance, have been administered and paid by the departments concerned in terms of the South-West Africa Affairs Act. In terms of the Social Pensions Ordinance, old age pensions are at present being paid to 2,258 persons in South-West Africa.

This Bill seeks to apply the Aged Persons Act, Act No. 81 of 1967, in terms of which, inter alia, old age pensions are payable, in the territory of South-West Africa. Apart from old age pensions, the Social Pensions Ordinance of the Territory also provides for the payment of pensions to the blind and the payment of disability grants. For the purposes of this specific Bill, the ordinance is being repealed only in so far as it relates to old age pensions.

The Bill provides that anything done in terms of the ordinance which is to be repealed, and which could be done in terms of any provision of the Aged Persons Act, 1967, shall be deemed to have been done in terms of the corresponding provision of the said Act. In addition thereto the payment of existing pensions is being authorized and maintained.

I want to give hon. members the assurance here that the old age pensions of the people who receive such pensions in the Territory, will not in any way be effected detrimentally by this legislation in so far as it may result in the decrease of benefits. On the contrary, in many cases, it may be to their advantage because certain concessions which are at present being made within the framework of the existing means test, and which have not yet been made applicable in their case, will now be made applicable by regulation. The other provisions of the Bill may, for the sake of convenience, be dealt with in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House, I want to say we support the Second Reading of this Bill. We have studied the provisions in this Bill, and believe this Bill facilitates the extension of the operation of the Aged Persons Act to South-West Africa. However, as regards extending the provisions of the principal Act to South-West Africa, there are other important provisions in the principal Act which will undoubtedly affect the situation in the Territory of South-West Africa. Here I refer particularly to the portions of the principal Act which are concerned with the registration of homes for the aged, and various other provisions which are made in the principal Act, Act No. 81 of 1967. By extending these provisions to South-West Africa, it is hoped that the hon. the Minister will give due recognition to the existing homes of the aged which are being administered by various organizations in South-West Africa. We also hope that the Minister will ensure that the provisions of the principal Act will not in any way adversely affect those homes which are already in existence and which are providing shelter for the aged in the Territory. The principal Act made provision for inspections, registration and stringent regulations which governed the establishment of such homes for the aged. In moving the Second Reading, the hon. the Minister merely mentioned that this is to be extended to South-West Africa and then he dealt with the question of pensions which are payable to the various groups in terms of that part of the legislation. However, there are other aspects of the principal Act which will undoubtedly affect the Territory of South-West Africa, and those organizations which are in existence in South-West Africa.

We know too that it is necessary for the definitions to be amended in terms of the various racial groups and that there will be other difficulties involved in the payment of these pensions, particularly when we take the various population groups which are in existence in South-West Africa, as well as the various groups which are in existence in the Republic, into account.

Then I believe there is another provision which requires comment, and that is the provision in clause 2 of the Bill which is before us. Clause 2 amends section 7 of the principal Act which deals with those persons who are entitled to claim an old-age pension. The previous provision stipulated that the Minister could under certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions exempt persons from those residential qualifications and to a certain extent from the provisions of the means test, where those persons are White persons who have come from other African territories. In terms of clause 2 of this Bill, this is being amended merely in so far as it concerns persons who come from Angola. It merely mentions other territories or other countries. I presume that the hon. the Minister is now extending the scope of this particular provision so that persons who come from other countries outside the African continent can now be considered in terms of special conditions in which case they might be exempted from residential qualifications. I believe it is quite an important provision that is being made here—as in the past the residential qualifications were matters which received very strict interpretation in terms of the principal Act. In reply to questions that I have asked previously in this House, the hon. the Minister indicated that at the present time this provision only applied to those persons who had come from the Congo, Kenya and Tanzania. It would appear that, in terms of clause 2 of this Bill, it is to be extended, according to subsection 5 of the same clause, to those persons who might leave the Republic. The “Republic” will now include the South-West African Territory. They will be able to continue to receive their pensions after a period of six months provided they meet other conditions, such as that it is in the discretion of the Secretary of Social Welfare and Pensions to grant such permission. That is one aspect which I believe is an important one as far as this side of the House is concerned.

There are other items, dealing with the repeal of the Ordinance of 1965 in the Territory of South-West Africa as it affects old age pensions and certain other matters. Perhaps in the Committee Stage we will have an opportunity of asking for further information in regard to the protection of those persons who are presently receiving their pensions in terms of the Ordinance which has now been repealed in so far as it affects old age pensions and other matters. We on this side of the House at this stage support this Bill in principle.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the hon. member who has just sat down and to tell the hon. the Minister that we heartily welcome this legislation.

What I really want to do, is to raise a question with the hon. the Minister. The salient feature of this Bill is the removal of all references to race and colour. As I say, this is something we welcome. What I want to ask the hon. the Minister is whether he is satisfied that legislation of this nature can be applied in a practical and successful way without any reference to race or classification.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place, I should like to react to the hon. member for Umbilo.

†The hon. member asked me to give an assurance in connection with existing old-age homes in South-West Africa. I can inform the hon. member that at the moment these old-age homes are subsidized by the South African Government. In other words, they do qualify according to our regulations. For that reason they will continue to qualify; there will be no trouble in future whatsoever as regards the financing of these old-age homes. No rights will in any way be taken away from them.

*The second matter with which the hon. member dealt, was the question of residential qualifications for pensions who want to qualify for pensions. It was my intention to deal with this matter in the Committee Stage during the discussion of clause 2, but because it was raised by the hon. member at this stage, I shall gladly do so now. Section 7 (1) (b) (iii) of the Aged Persons Act provides for the payment of old-age pensions to White persons who have been repatriated from Angola and who are descendants of persons born in any part of South Africa included in the Republic. We have a similar provision in section 7 (3). In terms of this section of the said Act, the Minister may exempt any White person, who has entered the Republic from any territory in Africa determined by him, from the provisions or from certain residential qualifications which he, as a South African citizen, has to meet before such a person qualifies for an old-age pension.

†So we have the provision under the existing Bill. It will be applied in this case as well.

*I may just tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that this legislation has been drafted in this way because of the fact that any reference to “race” as such has been removed from the principal Act altogether. We refer to “population groups” in the Act, as the hon. member will notice. In order to make the administration of the Act practicable, we did include the definitions in the regulations added to the Act. We believe that we shall indeed be able to administer the Act that way.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The elucidation of this Bill will be relatively short since it contains exactly the same principles as do the previous as well as the next two measures. However, in regard to this specific Bill there are a few special matters to which I do in fact want to draw attention.

In accordance with the recommendations made by the Commission of Enquiry into South-West Africa Affairs, the Government decided that the War Veterans’ Pensions Act should also be made applicable to this territory. The Bill we are considering at the moment, seeks to apply the War Veterans’ Pensions Act in this territory in so far as it is necessary for the effective implementation thereof.

Until during 1968 it was the procedure to award a war veteran’s pension to a war veteran who had performed war service on behalf of the Republic and was resident in South-West Africa, provided that upon payment thereof, any amount which would have been payable under the Social Pensions Ordinance of the Territory, was to remain the responsibility of the Administration. The effect of that was that the Administration was responsible for an amount equivalent to an old-age pension and that only additional allowances, representing the amount by which war veterans’ pensions were in excess of the ordinary old-age pensions, had to be paid by the Department. Upon the commencement of the War Veterans’ Pensions Act, 1968, Act No. 25 of 1968. this position changed, and the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions has been bearing the full responsibility in respect of the amount payable to war veterans of the Republic who are resident in South-West Africa.

As hon. members will notice, this Bill is brief and to the point, and I believe that if there is anything which is obscure in any way, it can be ironed out at the Committee Stage.

In conclusion there is one other point which I want to explain. The Government has decided that the German War Veterans’ Pensions Ordinance, Ordinance No. 5 of 1965 of the Territory, shall be retained for administration by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. In that way we shall handle that Pension Fund.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill. However, we do so with a certain reservation.

We have previously dealt with a Bill amending the Aged Persons Act and there are certain provisions in this Bill which are almost identical to the provisions in the Bill that has just been dealt with by this House, as the hon. the Minister has indicated. However, there is one important aspect of this Bill which we on this side of the House feel particularly strongly about. In clause 1 we have the definition of the war veteran, which is to be amended in terms of this Bill Here the various racial groups are being deleted together with the definitions of these racial groups. We have in the past amended the definition of a war veteran on several occasions. The provisions have been extended and in some cases war veterans pensions were granted to other groups and persons who served in other wars. Amendments have also been made in the past to add certain groups. In terms of this Bill the definition of a war veteran is amended by the deletion of the words “White person, Coloured person, Chinese or Indian.” The definition of a war veteran will now merely refer to “any person”. When the amending legislation was before this House to extend the definition of a war veteran to include Chinese, we on this side of the House expressed our concern and deep disappointment that the Government had not seen its way clear to amend that definition so as to also include Bantu persons. When one reads the first portion of the amended definition of a war veteran, it, at first appearance, strikes one that the proposed amendment will also enable a Bantu person to enjoy the privileges of the principal Act. However, the end of the definition makes a stipulation that this amendment which we have before us today does not include any person who, prior to the commencement of the War Veterans Pensions Amendment Act, 1971, was not a war veteran in terms of any law then in force. This particular proviso is one which causes us concern. We were hoping that it would not be necessary for this definition of a war veteran to be amended in this way. The practical effect of this legislation will be that the Bantu will still be excluded when it comes to the claiming of a war veterans pension in terms of the Act. The rules of the House do not permit us to move an amendment during the Committee Stage to delete this particular clause on account of the principle of additional expenditure. However, I would like to say that we believe that the ex-servicemen’s organizations have made a very strong case indeed from time to time in submitting that it is wrong that the Bantu people should be specifically excluded from the definition of a “war veteran”.

Order! The hon. member must seek another occasion to discuss this matter.

I am endeavouring to discuss the amendment as it is incorporated in the Bill now before us which specifically alters the definition of a “war veteran” by excluding Bantu people. This new definition specifically excludes this group of people. The War Veterans Pensions Act is the Act that is administered by this hon. Minister and it is in the power of this hon. Minister to amend the legislation that is before us. That is why I want to appeal to him to give consideration to dropping this subsection which he intends incorporating in this clause so as to enable these Bantu persons to be incorporated and termed as all other racial groups, as a person who qualifies for a war veteran’s pension.

I think it is important that we should indicate to the House that we believe that this is a great injustice to this group of persons who served in the various wars as volunteers and who have a proud record of service. We believe the costs involved will not be great. We have on occasion been told that it is difficult to propose legislation which involves increased expenditure before the Budget. However, I would like to indicate that we have had precedents. We have had occasions in 1970 where increases were granted to social pensioners long before the Budget was introduced. Those increases were incorporated and carried out in February, 1970, whereas the Budget was only brought before the House in August, 1970. My appeal to the hon. the Minister is therefore whether he, after consultation with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Minister of Finance, can give further consideration to not proceeding with the legislation before us as far as it affects the definition of a war veteran, but will endeavour to withdraw the relevant subsection which specifically excludes the Bantu people from being included in the definition of “war veteran”. I would like to indicate the importance of this matter. All other racial groups receive some recognition for the fact that they served as war veterans. That is why these various groups are mentioned in the previous legislation.

We know that it means a difference in regard to the means test and that additional amounts will have to be paid to these people. We also know that the inclusion of this definition means an increase of R8 per month to White war veterans, an extra R4 per month for Coloured and Indian war veterans, but we are not sure how much per month it means to a Chinese person who was a war veteran because I have not yet found a person who was a South African Chinese war veteran. However, on the basis of Government policy of applying a ratio of 4:2:1 this would mean that these people are entitled to at least an extra R2 per month which would be the result if this legislation was not proceeded with on the basis on which it is now before the House. We know that there is a long history attached to this matter. Since 1941 this matter has been discussed from time to time. That was a period 30 years ago.

I submit that a lot has transpired in the past 30 years and that we should not look at the position 30 years ago but at the position as it is now. As we see the position now, we find that more and more war veterans of all races who served in the various wars, many of them in World War II as well, are now approaching 60 years of age, which is the qualifying age for war veterans. This means that more of these people will qualify instead of the very few who now receive ex gratia grants as ex-servicemen. Here I refer to the Bantu. In reply to a question which I put recently in this House to the Minister of Bantu Administration he indicated that there were only 212 Bantu ex-servicemen who are receiving these special grants, which are no more than a Bantu old-age pension because they are not included in the definition of “war veteran”, and that the average monthly pension paid to these 212 Bantu ex-servicemen is R4.66 per month. Sir, this definition would have a great effect upon the Bantu people; it would give them material benefits as well in recognition of their war services, by applying the ratio, which I do not necessarily regard as being a realistic one, but even applying that ratio as it exists at the present time, would mean an extra R2 per month for these people. Sir, I do hope that the hon. the Minister will listen to this appeal and see whether something can be done to amend this legislation before it is finally passed into an Act, once again precluding this deserving group of people.

Mr. Speaker, the other provisions of this Bill are almost identical to the provisions of the previous legislation, and there are no matters here that we wish to pursue at this stage, so we support the Second Reading which in principle extends the provisions of the War Veterans’ Pension Act to South-West Africa. At the same time it contains a provision in the definition of “war veteran” which we feel concerned about and we hope that the hon. the Minister will give further consideration to this plea of ours.

I rise in order to lend my strong support to the plea made for the Bantu war veterans by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. We cannot understand why the hon. the Minister amended this definition only to undo the whole definition again at the end of the clause. We feel that these Bantu war veterans have been done an injustice, and the sooner that injustice is remedied, the better. We cannot see why that injustice should continue.

I am very pleased indeed to see the hon. the Minister of Defence here, for this matter will in the future have a rather marked effect on the administration and the powers of his department. We hope that he will use his influence in the Cabinet so as to help the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions to remedy this matter.

The way I see this matter, there are two aspects which we should consider. The first is the position of the Bantu war veterans whom we have at the moment, particularly those who took part in the last two world wars. They are the only Bantu war veterans who are still alive. The second aspect which is very important to us, is the attitude which the Bantu may adopt in the future in times of trouble.

Sir, just as was done by the Coloureds, the Indians and the Chinese, the Bantu contributed their share when we needed them. We could go back to the distant past, but I think that for the purposes of this debate we may as well confine ourselves to the last two world wars. The part taken by the Bantu in the last world war in particular, was a tremendous one. As many of them as were needed by the Whites to help them, came forward and rendered outstanding service.

†In the past we have heard the argument that they were non-combatants. I do not think that argument cuts any ice whatsoever. There were very many Whites who also served in non-combatant units and these are included in the term “war veteran”. Very many of these Bantu did serve in non-combatant units but even when they served in non-combatant units many of them went into the most dangerous positions and very many of them had to be armed at times, according to the jobs they had to do. You could not very well deny them arms simply because their skins were black; they had to defend themselves.

I have on previous occasions in this Home mentioned that during the last war no fewer than 78,000 of them came forward and did their share, and no fewer than 1,700 of them gave their lives, many of them were decorated for valour under very trying circumstances. Very many of them served faithfully by the sides of the Whites in very dangerous conditions. We have not treated them fairly by excluding them from the definition of “war veteran” and they know it, and very many of them resent it. What will their reaction be when we need them again? How are they going to influence those who come behind them? I think our sense of fair play should not allow us to let this injustice continue.

This brings me to the second consideration. What can we expect from the Bantu in future? Whether we like it or not, if we are in trouble again we are going to need them, and we will need many of them, whether we have self-governing Bantu states or not. What do we find the experience to be in the rest of the world in modern conflicts, especially these days when we are dealing with unconventional warfare, with warfare of infiltration and subversion, etc.? What has happened in French Indo-China? Where the local population were against the French, the French lost that war. What is happening at the moment in Vietnam where the Americans are having such a bad time?

Order! That is going very far now. The hon. member is dragging in the whole world.

Very well, Sir, I will come back from Vietnam and I will come right to our doorstep; I will come to Rhodesia, Angola and Moçambique. There the success of the White Governments depends on the goodwill of the local inhabitants. It is a point which is being stressed all over the world today. Our own Supreme Command, whenever they speak on the subject, will tell you the same story. I am trying to make the point that we must regain and retain the goodwill of these people, and we cannot do that unless we play the game with them and include them in the definition of a war veteran.

The only objection that was raised, was in connection with the Bantu war veterans, and I want to deal with it briefly. Last year the hon. member for North Rand also raised this matter on my Vote, and at the time I told him that it was not a matter which fell under my department; it falls under the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who handles that specific aspect. This is the position in terms of our policy. I may just tell him that at the moment there are approximately 1,400 Bantu who do receive war pensions—it is not as though they were excluded entirely —but they are receiving these pensions for disabilities they sustained in the war, i.e. wounds or injuries.

Now we have the problem that this Bill only seeks to apply the present Act in the territory of South-West Africa. If I were to include them here, i.e. if I provided that Bantu shall also qualify as war veterans, the South-West African legislation would be different from the South African legislation in this regard, and that would mean that quite a problem would result since the two Acts would not be in line with each other. As the position is at present, in terms of policy it falls under the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Now I just want to tell the hon. member this: The major problem being experienced in regard to the matter at this stage, is that it has always been the premise that people who were really under arms, who really fought, who carried arms and fired them during the war, are people who qualify as war veterans.

There are numerous cases, dating back to the Anglo-Boer War, where, even at this stage, I am continually receiving applications from people telling me that they were very young but did in fact engage in active combat, but if it cannot be proved that they were under arms, I cannot grant them pensions. Are we now to grant such pensions to all Bantu who joined up during the two wars, irrespective of the work they did? I do not know how many of them are still alive today, but during the two World Wars 160,017 Bantu joined up. Some of those people have probably died in the meantime, but the number is not so small that we may ignore them. However, I want to assure the hon. members for North Rand and Umbilo anew that before the Committee Stage I shall discuss the matter fully with the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Bantu Administration. I shall therefore furnish them with a further reply in the course of the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As in the case of the previous two Bills, this Bill, too, merely seeks to apply certain provisions to South-West Africa. At the moment there are in the Territory only 11 White persons who are receiving blind persons’ pensions. According to available statistics there were also, during 1968, only 11 Coloured persons in the Territory who were in receipt of blind persons’ pensions. It is also conspicuous that the 11 blind White pensioners are all elderly people. Their average age is 64 years. An interesting conclusion which can be drawn from this, is that the younger persons who are blind, have received sufficient training to enable them to compete in the open labour market or to be employed by sheltered labour and to become self-supporting in that way. This is a tendency which we recommend most strongly and appreciate. However, it should be borne in mind that there are some blind persons who also suffer from other physical disabilities and cannot be self-supporting. In some cases these persons have been awarded disability grants in lieu of a blind person’s pension, depending on the application that was lodged. Furthermore, it is a well-known fact that many of our aged who are blind today, are in receipt of an old age pension or a war veteran’s pension. More often than not blindness set in after these aged persons had been in receipt of a pension for years, and it would serve no purpose to convert such a social pension into a blind person’s pension.

Before a person can be granted a blind person’s pension, that person has to be registered as a blind person or else apply for registration as a blind person. Upon receiving from such a person an application for registration as a blind person, the Secretary for the Department concerned shall cause that person to be examined by a medical practitioner whose name has been placed on a list framed after consultation with the South African Medical Council. If, subsequent to his examination, the medical practitioner is satisfied that the applicant is blind in terms of the prescribed criteria, he furnishes a certificate to that effect. Upon receipt of that certificate, the name of the applicant is entered in a register.

In terms of clause 9 of this Bill the name of any person in the Territory who, immediately prior to the commencement of this Act, was in receipt of a pension for blind persons awarded to him in terms of the Social Pensions Ordinance, 1965, of the Territory, or any ordinance repealed in terms thereof, shall be entered in the register. That means, therefore, that we accept the person in that capacity. Such a person shall then be deemed to have been registered as a blind person. Therefore, he need not go through the whole procedure again. The other clauses of this Bill merely seek to apply the Blind Persons Act, 1968, in the territory of South-West Africa, and to amend the Act for that purpose.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill. The position of blind persons who have to claim blind persons’ pensions as such is not very satisfactory. I am speaking of those persons who are prevented by blindness from finding a form of employment within the provisions of the means test, and those persons who have not yet reached the qualifying age for an old-age pension. Those persons who reach the qualifying age receive an old-age pension instead of a blind person’s pension, because the blind person’s pension can then be converted to an old-age pension.

We realize that it is a great comfort to many of these people, who do not qualify for the other social pensions, to find that they do qualify for a pension in terms of the Blind Persons’ Pensions Act. We believe that it is important for these provisions to be extended to such persons in South-West Africa, and that those persons who are registered as blind persons in the territory of South-West Africa should be fully protected. We believe that they should be able to enjoy the privileges afforded them under the principal Act. Special provision is now being made for them in terms of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I may tell the members of this House that this is the last of the Bills which are applicable to South-West Africa.

In pursuance of the resolutions passed by the Government on the financial and administrative relations between the Republic and South-West Africa, arising from the report of the Commission of Inquiry, it is also being contemplated now to repeal this Ordinance in South-West Africa and to apply this Act in South-West Africa as well.

A few details may be interesting. Since 1st April, 1969, all disability grants payable in terms of the relevant Ordinance, have been administered and paid by the relevant departments of the Republic of South Africa. When this take-over took place, there were 417 persons in the Territory who were in receipt of disability grants.

A disability grant is payable to persons who have not yet reached the prescribed age for qualifying for an old age pension and who, subject to the provisions of the relevant Act, have, owing to physical or mental disabilities, been rendered incapable of deriving from any employment or occupation the means required to enable them to provide adequately for their maintenance. An attendant’s allowance may be paid to a person who receives a disability grant and who is in such a physical or mental condition that he requires the regular attendance of any person. At present this grant amounts to R10 per month per person and is, under similar circumstances, also payable to persons receiving old age pensions, war veterans’ pensions and blind persons’ pensions.

At present there are slight differences in the application of the means test in respect of social pensions and grants in the Republic and South-West Africa, differences which may be eliminated upon the promulgation of regulations. This step is regarded as being essential with a view to simplifying administration by eliminating any departures, which can only lead to misunderstanding.

I do not think that any clause of this Bill is of such a nature that it requires further explanation, as it only seeks to apply the Disability Grants Act, 1968, in the territory of South-West Africa as well.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is the same as the previous one. This side of the House supports the principle and supports the Second Reading of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, before the debate was adjourned on Tuesday I indicated that, although the United Party was more than sympathetic to the proposal that greater mobility be provided for labour in the urban areas and although we agreed that there should be more efficient administration, we do not agree that the urban local authorities are the ones responsible for any inefficiency there may be. We say it is due mainly to the interference by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. Whilst I was talking, the member for Brakpan interjected that the municipalities were not carrying out the Government’s policy. I think he let the cat out of the bag. Because they feel that the local authorities are not carrying out the policy of the Government, they now want to take all administration away from them. It is not for the reasons given by the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is because they feel that the local authorities are not sympathetic to their policy. But I want to point out that the Government has all the machinery it needs to force the municipalities to carry out their policy. They can force them to carry it out in the letter, but in the spirit it is different. I pointed out that the municipalities were, in fact, acting as a cushion against the harshness of the Government’s regulations and directives.

The hon. the Minister has offered, as a bait for the taking away of the administration from the municipalities, a greater mobility of labour. This is a most attractive appeal, Sir. There is despair amongst the employers, who want to make more efficient use of the Bantu labour available to them in the urban areas. There is despair, too, amongst the Bantu, who know that there is demand for their labour but, because of red tape and unrealistic Government regulations and prohibitions, they are not able to take advantage of this demand. The Bantu are not bound by law to one employer. They are not the legal property of another or divested of freedom and personal rights. However, because of the very real desire to qualify for permanent residence in the urban areas under section 10 of the Bantu Urban Areas Act, they have to be very careful about leaving one employer for another. They certainly cannot move from one urban area to another. For fear of being sent back to the reserve, where they have no interest, they are compelled to spend all their lives in one township, even if they know that they can be more profitably employed elsewhere. The Bantu living in the urban areas see the vista of this new opportunity which is being offered. It is the opportunity of being allowed to follow their employers now from one factory area to another. They are glad about this Bill and they welcome it in that it allows them to move more freely. However, in their ignorance, they probably blame the municipality for the unpopular regulations which now control their lives. I know that when they complain about being endorsed out of the urban areas to the Transkei, Chief Kaiser Matanzima has told them that it was not the fault of the Government, but that it was the fault of the United Party municipalities. He blamed the municipalities for having enforced these laws. Therefore, I say you will probably find that the Bantu will accept this Bill as giving them some relief. The employers too are not so concerned if the administration is taken away from the municipalities. They realize that the municipalities are only the agents of the Government, and under the existing system the municipalities cannot allow them to use the labour more freely. If the hon. the Minister had left the administration in the hands of the local authorities, but allowed the freer movement as he now intends doing in terms of this Bill, he would find that the employers and the Bantu would willingly accept the amendment, especially when they think that the municipalities will be less harsh in applying the regulations. It may be said that if the employers are prepared to accept this Bill and if the employees support the legislation, this Bill is desirable.

Provision for greater mobility of Bantu labour certainly is desirable as I have said. Then there is also a demand for more efficient labour and that is also desirable. It is very easy for this hon. Minister to provide for the greater mobility of the Bantu labour and yet to leave the administration with the local authority. Section 40 of the Bantu Administration Act provides that local authorities may co-operate with each other and with other Government bodies and also with Government officers in administering Bantu in their own areas. I say it is possible for the Minister to amend section 40 to allow for the mobility of labour, because in terms of that Act there was no provision for mobility of labour within the areas. There was merely a provision for joint administration. This provision for joint administration was introduced by, I think, ex-Minister De Wet Nel, when he was the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He did it because he could see the advantage of allowing the local authorities to co-operate in administering the Bantu living in their areas. However, as I have said, no provision was made for the Bantu to move from one area to another. Why does this Minister not act in terms of section 40? Why does he not extend section 40 to allow the municipalities, local authorities and Government bodies to co-operate? Instead of that, he takes power to establish administration areas in terms of this Bill, and it may include areas under the jurisdiction of several urban local authorities under one board. He does that after consultation with the local authorities. In terms of section 40, he did not do it after consultation with the local authorities—he did it at the request of the local authorities. This “after consultation” is meaningless. It means the Minister can simply do what he likes. He can just say to the local authorities “I am going to do it”. If he inserted “in consultation”, as he did in the Bill which we passed earlier on, namely the Bantu Homelands Constitution Bill, it would mean that he would have to get their concurrence. Now, why cannot the Minister provide for this in this Bill as well, namely that he will do it “in consultation” with the local authorities, seeing that, in terms of section 40 of the Urban Areas Act, his predecessor only allowed the establishment of the boards with the approval of the local authorities.

When a Minister establishes boards, in terms of this Bill, he chooses the members. He appoints members on the boards on account of their knowledge of Bantu labour matters in agriculture, others on account of their wide knowledge of Bantu labour matters in any other industry, and one in respect of the local authority in the area. Ten there are full-time civil servants. But the local authority appointee, although he may be said to represent the local authority, may not be representative of the local authority.

Why not?

The local authority is required by the Minister to submit a list of names for him to choose from. Supposing there are 10 councillors on the local authority and there is one member that the Minister particularly wants, and he fears that the council will not recommend that member, he can ask the council to submit a list of 10 names to him. The he picks out the man he wants. So the member who represents the local authority may not in fact be representative of that body. When these members of the local authorities are appointed, they will know what is expected of them, because there is a provision in this Bill that the Minister may dismiss any one of the members for no reason. There is no reason for dismissal of a member of the board, for example, because of misbehaviour. He can dismiss him without giving any reason at all. The result will be that the members will realize that if they do not agree with the Minister, or if they act contrary to his policy, they will simply be dismissed. The hon. member for Brakpan told us that these boards are going to be established because the local authorities are not acting according to the wishes of the Government.

Clause 8 of this Bill provides for disclosure of information. If a member of a board discloses information which he has obtained because of his membership of the board, he commits a criminal offence, unless, of course, he does it in the course of his duty or in giving evidence in a court of law. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether a member who is an appointee of a local authority, when he reports to that local authority the information he heard while attending a meeting of the board held in camera or through his special position on this board, will he be deemed to be doing that in the course of his duties or not. It is most important that a person who is appointed to represent a local authority should be allowed to report to the body he represents. I will be glad if the hon. the Minister will deal with that and tell us what he considers to be in the course of such an appointee’s duty.

One of our objections to this board is that it is responsible to nobody except the Minister. Admittedly the Controller and Auditor-General will audit the accounts. We are very pleased about this because we have had experience of this hon. Minister establishing other odies without providing that the Controller and Auditor-General shall audit the accounts. In this case, however, Parliament will in any event, through the Controller and Auditor-General, see what is happening to the accounts of this body and how the money is being spent. We commend that. But the body is not responsible to anybody else. It accounts to no one. The hon. the Minister will say that people will know what is happening because the meetings are open to the public. But of course they need not be. Meetings can be held in camera if the board considers that the business can be more conveniently and advantageously dealt with in camera. We intend in the Committee Stage to move an amendment to assure that as few meetings as possible will be held in camera so that the public will in fact be kept advised all the time as to what is happening in these boards.

Clause 11 sets out the objects of the board. The hon. the Minister has told us briefly what the functions of the board could be. It can, for instance, acquire property, exchange it, hire it. develop land, sell land, hypothecate land, raise loans on it, dispose of it by donation, etc. But in clause 11 (1) (e) it is laid down that the board can take over all the rights, powers, functions, duties and obligations of an urban local authority in terms of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, the Bantu Services Levy Act, the Urban Bantu Councils Act, and the Bantu Labour Act. It can also take over authority in terms of the Bantu Beer Act and of the Liquor Act, where it can obtain more money. However, the point is that it takes over all these rights, powers, functions, duties and obligations of the local authorities. In clause 11 (1) (e) (ii) it is laid down that the Minister, by notice in the Gazette, can vest the board with such rights, powers, functions, duties and obligations, in so far as they relate to the Bantu in any area. However, what worries us is that the Minister can do that subject to such conditions, modifications or exceptions as he may specify in the notice. He can alter ordinances as he likes. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister could tell us what is envisaged by allowing him to make these modifications to ordinances, because if the Minister is given this power he can completely wipe out an ordinance. This must be read in conjunction with clause 22, which deals with the regulations. The board cannot make regulations. The Minister will make the regulations. The Minister can make regulations as to the regulation and control of land owned by a board or the replanning of townships and streets, etc. He can furthermore make regulations to lay down the powers, functions and duties of inspectors. He can make regulations regarding the procedure relating to the calling for and acceptance of tenders, the adaption of a medical aid fund, and a housing scheme in respect of the employees. In clause 22 (3) (e) it is also laid down that the Minister may make regulations as to the movement of Bantu labourers between different boards’ administration areas and the distribution of Bantu labourers between different categories of employment in any such area. The Minister, in fact, will, by regulation, take complete control of the movement of Bantu.

Read further. Lower down it is specified.

In terms of that the Minister can control by regulation the movement of Bantu labourers.

Only in terms of the relevant Act.

Yes, that is the Bantu Labour Act. I am coming to that. Clause 22 (6) reads as follows: “Any regulation made under subsection (3) (e) shall have effect only to the extent to which it is not inconsistent with the Bantu Labour Act, 1964 (No. 67 of 1964).”. Clause 22 (3) (f) says, however: “generally for any other matter in regard to which he may consider it necessary to make regulations in order to ensure the effective administration of this Act”. I submit that this will not be done under the Bantu Labour Act. No regulation may be in conflict with the Bantu Labour Act. If a matter has no connection with the Bantu Labour Act, it will obviously not conflict with it. As I understood the hon. the Deputy Minister these regulations will only apply to the Bantu Labour Act. But I want to point out that clause 22 (3) (f) does not read that way. It gives the hon. the Minister the power to do what he likes. Clause 22 (4) reads as follows: “Different regulations may be made in respect of different boards’ administration areas or different parts of any such area or different classes of employers of Bantu labourers, or of Bantu labourers, in any such area”. The hon. the Minister can therefore differentiate between employers and between different classes of labourers. Yes, the hon. the Deputy Minister nods his head. Subsection (7) provides that the hon. the Minister can make regulations to provide for penalties for any contravention or failure to comply with the provisions of any permit which may be issued up to a fine of not exceeding R200 or in default of payment to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. I think it is shocking that this Parliament is going to allow the Minister to lay down a penalty by regulation. Fancy allowing a Minister to do a thing like that! I think it is quite wrong. The hon. the Minister can lay down a minimum penalty for an offence. We say it is quite wrong to give this extensive power to the Minister.

Clause 12 deals with the assets and liabilities of a board. This clause divests the Local Authority of its assets and hands them over to the board. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if compensation will be paid in all cases. In subsection (1) provision is made for compensation “if any”. I do not know why the words “if any” are put into the Bill. Is it contemplated that in certain cases compensation will not be paid? We are very pleased to see that in terms of subsection (4) where there is dispute between the hon. the Minister and the local authority as to the compensation to be paid the Controller and Auditor-General will act as an arbitrator. We accept this and we are glad that the Controller and Auditor-General is brought in to act as an arbitrator in a case like this. I would however, be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us more information as regards the question of compensation for municipalities.

Clause 13 deals with the funds of a board. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Deputy Minister told us where the funds would come from. In fact, he repeated what appears in the White Paper and also in an official release at the time of the publication of the draft Bill. The funds of the boards are mainly moneys presently in the Bantu Revenue Accounts of local authorities and the sources of revenue remain unchanged. He said that these sources are mainly rentals from housing schemes, trading premises and site rentals, Bantu beer and liquor profits, Bantu services levy, donations, interest, investments, and so on. He went on to say that “the boards are expected to be financially independent so that Treasury will then not have to be approached for funds. The financial aspects have been thoroughly investigated and it is clear that existing provisions in this Bill are sufficient for administration boards to perform their functions adequately without recourse to the State for financial assistance”. These boards will get no more money than local authorities are getting at the moment from these accounts. I would like to point out that in terms of his speech and of the White Paper, they expect these funds not only to be able to finance all the needs of the board but also that there will be something over, because in terms of subclause (7) the board will be able to donate funds, in the case of an excess, to the Bantu Trust. Sir, it is well known that the municipalities have not been able to finance the requirements of the Bantu townships out of Bantu revenue. We know that the Johannesburg Municipality subsidizes heavily; we know too that the Cape Town Municipality advanced over R1 million last year to its Bantu Revenue Account to finance capital expenditure. The Minister may say that the boards will be able to perform their functions adequately with the funds at their disposal. It may be adequate in the Minister’s opinion or adequate in the board’s opinion, but it is certainly not adequate in the opinion of the local authorities at the moment. To administer Bantu townships in the way they like to do, they have to find money elsewhere and what we fear is that this board, if it is going to rely solely on its revenue, is not going to administer these areas as humanely as the municipalities are doing at the moment.

Sir, the Minister has also relied on funds from the Bantu Services Levy Act. He said in his speech that there was some doubt as to what he was going to do with these funds. He said—

I must say that this is puzzling to me. I would certainly be discomforted if I was negotiating with somebody who did not accept my bona fides and it is peculiar to me that the Minister feels comforted to find that anybody accepts his bona fides. What sort of negotiations are these where everybody suspects mala fides all the time? In order to show his bona fides he is going to move an amendment at the Committee Stage to the clause to make it clear that the provisions in this subsection of the Bill, which entitles boards to hand over excess money to the Bantu Trust, will be subject to the terms of section 11 (1) (e), that is to say, subject to the laws mentioned there. What is meant by “subject to the laws mentioned there”? You see, Sir, the employers fear that the Bantu Services Levy Act is not going to be used by this Minister for the purpose for which it was instituted. They comment on how well the services levy committee has worked with their assistance. They say that they had representation on the Bantu Services Levy Committee, and then they go on to say—

I accept that.

The Deputy Minister says he accepts that. There are reports that the amount standing to the credit of the Services Levy accounts of the different municipalities may total as much as R55 million. I do not know whether that is correct or not; perhaps the Minister can tell us.

All round.

Yes, all the municipalities. We understand that Johannesburg has about R5 million; I think Springs has about R3 million, and Cape Town has about R3 million. The mere fact that they have these millions standing to the credit of their accounts means that they have not been able to spend this money because there has been no call for the provision of amendities. In terms of section 19 of the Bantu Urban Areas Act this money can be used for supplying services; it can be used in the first instance for paying the officials and paying the committee for the administration of this service and also for expenditure incurred by the local authority on the provision of water, sanitation, lighting, and road services in locations under the control of the local authority. There is some concern about the wording of paragraph (g) of section 19 (3)bis, which reads—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to make it quite clear to us in his reply that he will be prepared to accept an amendment in the Committee Stage and that it is in fact his policy that the promise of Dr. Verwoerd will be carried out with regard to the utilization of this money. I do not know, Sir, why the Deputy Minister smiles. He accepts what I read out just now, as promised by Dr. Verwoerd. Is he going to carry out the promise of Dr. Verwoerd or is he not, or is he, by using paragraph (g), going to allow money collected in Johannesburg, for instance, to be used for amenities in some other urban area outside of the locations attached to the Johannesburg municipality? We want to hear from him in definite terms how he is going to use this money. He says it is a comfort to him to hear that these people accept his bona fides. Let him now show that he deserves this trust.

Sir, the height of audacity in this Bill is contained in clause 16. The Minister now divests the local authorities of all their authority and he takes over with a view to more efficient management. In terms of clause 16, however, he makes the local authorities responsible for supplying services. Well, somebody has to supply services; I admit that, but how does he do it? He lays down that they will render assistance and facilities to a board with regard to essential services on the same charges as those which normally apply within the local authority. In other words, if a local authority is asked by the board to provide water or sewage or lighting, the local authority has to do it, and it can only charge what it is charging its own ratepayers. In other words, if a local authority happens to subsidize its ratepayers by providing them with free water, for example, it would then be compelled, I take it, to give free water to the board as well because it cannot charge more than it is charging its own ratepayers. Some local authorities do subsidize water. Some local authorities do subsidize these services by means of revenue earned on other accounts.

How can you subsidize a trading account?

If the local authority does not agree to provide the service, then the board reports the local authority to the Minister and the Minister then acts. He can then tell the board to go ahead and do the work itself if he is not satisfied with the manner in which the local authority has done it or if it has refused to do it, and then the board, after it has done its work, can call upon the municipality to pay. The board can get payment by action in a competent court or by levying a special rate upon all rateable property within the area under the jurisdiction of such local authority or by obtaining payment from the competent authority, by way of deduction from any subsidy, grant or other moneys payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or payable by an administrator to such local authority. It can adopt all three or any of two of these methods. And it can do it on a certificate by such board as to the amount of such costs, which will be prima facie proof of that amount. That certificate will be prima facie proof that the amount is due. I say this is an intrusion into the affairs of local authorities which cannot be tolerated. Local authorities are losing part of the administration traditionally looked upon as their function and for which they and their advisers are particularly trained. In addition, they can be compelled to do something which may not be to the advantage of that local authority or that community and they have no right of appeal to anyone. I wish to move an amendment which correctly sets out our views, as follows—

1. (a) that Bantu labour be used more effectively so that the workers concerned can contribute more to the economy of South Africa and earn just rewards for their contribution; and
2. (b) more especially that greater mobility of Bantu labour be granted within the urban areas,

1. (i) it removes the administration of the urban Bantu laws from the local authorities where it properly belongs; and
2. (ii) it gives dictatorial and unwarranted powers to the Minister to control the employment and the very lives of the Bantu outside the homelands.”

I have stressed several times that we all want greater mobility of labour and the claims on the Minister to make labour available are becoming irresistible. He can supply this labour without taking drastic steps against local authorities as he is doing here. He will now control labour in all its facets. He controls the exodus of the Bantu from the reserves and he controls them in the reserves in terms of a Bill we recently passed in this House. By regulations he takes further powers unto himself as to what he can do in the reserves and in the homelands. The Department of Planning cannot act without his consent. The Department of Planning has got to know what labour he will allow to operate in the area. The hon. the Minister of Finance could not even discuss labour with industrialists without his consent, and the Minister of Labour sits here powerless. The Minister of Labour has given up all control of the Bantu. He sits calmly and lets this Minister take over complete control of the biggest labour force in the country. He sees it being wrested from his hands without doing anything about it. The Minister of Labour has the power to reserve jobs, but he hands over to this Minister and his Deputy the right to say when Bantu may not do jobs and when they may do jobs. Too many Bantu now in employment in different jobs come directly under the control of this Minister and his Deputy. There is nothing we can do to stop it, except to protest in this Assembly as we are doing against the powers which are being given to this Minister. I cannot understand how hon. members opposite can sit quietly and see this Minister taking more and more powers unto himself. With the regulations he can pass, he can do anything he likes in the urban areas once he has taken this control out of the hands of the local authority. By regulation he can exercise control.

Only in terms of the relevant Acts.

But all the Acts are affected. I would like the Deputy Minister to tell us when he replies what can this Minister not do. The only consolation we have in regard to this measure is that I do not think it will ever be necessary for this Minister to introduce any other Bill into this House. I do not see what further powers he can take unto himself. He has absolute power in the reserves and he will now have absolute power in the urban areas. He controls the labour as he wishes. He controls the movement of the Bantu. He controls their lives in the townships through his boards, because the boards are only his tools. As I pointed out earlier, he can dismiss them. If any member does not carry out his wishes, he can dismiss him without giving any reason at all. I say that it is wrong to give this Minister all this power. He is building up an empire. He is already the most powerful man in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation fulfils a long-felt desire we on this side of the House have had. I make no secret of the fact that I have for many years advocated that the centralization of these matters should take place to a greater extent as far as local authority administration is concerned. There are hon. members here who sat with me in the Johannesburg City Council. I have in mind now of the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. member for Jeppes. I know that the hon. member for Jeppes was for many years an advocate of local authority matters, such as Bantu administration, transport, fire brigade services, sewerage works, etc., being dealt with on a regional basis. They wanted us, to a certain extent, to have a metropolitan administrative system. This is not something which only I have advocated. Those hon. members will recall that many influential people on the City Council of Johannesburg recently advocated that attention should be given to the introduction of regional government systems, as far as certain activities are concerned. This legislation now wants to empower the Minister to establish Bantu administration on a regional basis. I may say that I am now speaking from experience. For years I was on the Johannesburg City Council. I think that as far as this matter is concerned I can speak with just as much authority as anyone sitting on the opposite side. During all the years I was on that City Council, I was a member of the non-White Affairs Committee. That was from 1951 to 1958. When I was a member of the Transvaal Executive Committee, local authority matters were entrusted to me for eight years. I dealt directly with these matters every day. I want to say that with this Bill we are now adopting a sound course as far as local government is concerned, and particularly as far as Bantu administration in this country is concerned. If we consider this Bill very objectively, and if we forget the political side of the matter, I think we will agree that this will now be conducive to sound Bantu administration. I shall come in a moment to what the hon. member for Transkei said, and react to a few of the points he made. I am sorry the hon. member is now seeing all kinds of spectres. I am sorry he has all kinds of misgivings, and that he sees all kinds of sinister motives in this legislation.

Let us consider this legislation objectively. The hon. member began to drag politics into the discussion the other day. We can also make a political issue of this matter, but I am not prepared to do so. I am prepared to consider and to analyse this matter objectively. As I have said, we came to the conclusion, as a result of all our years of experience of Bantu administration in the Johannesburg City Council, but it would be a sound thing to remove Bantu administration from the everyday activities of a City council. This applies particularly in respect of city councils which are elected on a political basis. We have done this because we have seen so much already of how these people exploit Bantu administration and Bantu affairs for political purposes. I am sorry that it happened, but it is still happening today.

As far as Johannesburg is concerned, the hon. member tried in his speech the other day to make us believe that Johannesburg has a model City Council and that they have such a good Bantu administration. As I have already said, I was also on that committee and I saw what was going on there. The hon. member referred to the Soweto complex in Johannesburg. I may remind him that three-quarters of Soweto is administered by the City Council of Johannesburg. The other quarter of Soweto consist of Meadowlands, Diepkloof and those areas, which are administered by the Bantu Resettlement Board, as the hon. member knows. I reject the insinuation the hon. member made here in his speech the other day when he said that the City Council of Johannesburg was administering Soweto in such an excellent way in comparison with what was being done in Meadowlands. He said that Soweto was being administered in a far more humanitarian manner than was the case in Meadowlands and Diepkloof. Those areas happen to fall in my constituency. I do not know whether the hon. member for Transkei speaks here with any knowledge or authority in regard to those areas. I do not even know whether he knows precisely where Soweto is. He may have flown over it. But it is in my constituency and the other day I took the trouble to make an inspection of those areas. We knew that this debate would be conducted and that hon. members would say this. I drove right through Meadowlands. I also serve on the Resettlement Board. As I said, I drove right through Meadowlands, Diepkloof and Soweto from one side to the other. Let me tell the hon. members that as far as Meadowlands, Diepkloof and Soweto are concerned, we can say that there is no difference to be discerned between the dwellings there and between the administration carried out in those areas.

What about the facilities?

As far as facilities are concerned, the facilities in Meadowland and Diepkloof are of an equally high standard as those in Soweto. The hon. member referred to a few sports grounds which have been laid out and to a swimming bath which has been built in Soweto. I know how those facilities were established there. They were established with funds which were collected at that time by people like Father Huddleston. They built the swimming bath there. With certain of those funds certain of these other sports facilities were established there. But the facilities which have been established there, are not facilities which are set aside only for that part which falls under the Johannesburg City Council. The facilities have been made available there for the whole of Soweto. They have been established there for the Meadowlands and Diepkloof area as well.

The hon. members can go and have a look at what happened recently in Meadowlands. Bioscope facilities for those people, sports grounds for them, have been established there. Such facilities have also been established in Diepkloof. Now this hon. member has stated here that the administration of these areas under the Bantu Resettlement Board is very poor. I want to tell the hon. member that it is an absolutely model organization and a model administration. This is very clear proof to me that this Board which will be established in terms of this legislation, will function very well indeed. Since 1951 we have had an opportunity to put it to the test with a board such as the Bantu Resettlement Board. This board consists of interested persons and experts, and it has been proved that they can produce very good Bantu administration in areas such as these. I want to mention another example to hon. members. I want to mention the example of Sebokeng. There sits the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark who has some knowledge of this, and here sits the hon. member for Heidelberg and he also has some knowledge of it because it falls under part of his constituency. Hon. members may as well go and see what is happening in Sebokeng. Sebokeng does not fall under the local government, but has a statutory board, the chairman of which is a Mr. Willie Heckroodt. There we have various parties which are represented on that board. Where is there a more and a greater model Bantu township than Sebokeng? It has been properly laid out and properly constructed and proper facilities have been established for those people there. Sebokeng is a place we in South Africa can be proud of. That is why I say, as far as this Board is concerned, that I did not fear for one moment that they would not render as good a service to the community, and to commerce and industry in general as the present board is doing.

Who controls Sebokeng?

Sebokeng is controlled by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, and that board has been appointed to undertake on its behalf these services and supervisory work there at Sebokeng.

I want to mention something else. The hon. member also referred here to possible subsidization which has to take place by certain local authorities. I referred in particular to two local authorities, namely those of Johannesburg and Cape Town. He said that they must subsidize the Bantu Revenue Account annually. I want to say that this is a shocking state of affairs as far as Johannesburg is concerned. This just proved to me again that Johannesburg, as far as Bantu administration is concerned, is over-administered. I do not want to say that they are wasting money, but they are tackling matters on a large scale which really fall outside the ambit of Bantu administration. In the year 1967-’68 Johannesburg had to subsidize this Bantu Revenue Account with R356,000. In 1968-’69 the amount was R218,600. In 1969-’70 the amount was R740,000. For the present financial year it is estimated that the amount will be R1.25 million. There must be something radically wrong if city councils such as these have to subsidize the Bantu Revenue Account in this way. If we take into account that the Bantu Revenue Account of places such as Diepkloof and Meadowlands, which fall under the Resettlement Board, are not subsidized to the extent of one farthing by the Bantu Resettlement Board, then Johannesburg does not compare well at all. Only last year that Resettlement Board, with the credit balance it had in its account, paid R50,000 to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development for the development of Bantu homelands. The previous year we contributed R30,000. From Johannesburg we have not yet received a brass farthing.

Who gave you those recent figures for Johannesburg?

The figures are official figures. Here they are given in the official documents. These figures are official figures, and if the hon. member for Jeppes would take the trouble, he would get them. Ί shall give them to him if he would like them. This is the degree to which Johannesburg has to subsidize that Account. I am thinking for example of the cost of crèches and playgrounds for children established there. The cost of Johannesburg crèches is 15 cents per day. We supply precisely the same service in Meadowlands and Diepkloof to the Bantu children at 12 cents per day. Here is ample proof that we are able by means of a board such as this, under good care, to render these services to the Bantu much cheaper, and particularly today. The United Party in the debate on the motion of no-confidence spoke about manpower. There is quite probably a manpower shortage, but I think that the day has also arrived when we should make better use of the manpower we have at our disposal. On the Witwatersrand there is a whole series of city and town councils, each with an overall organization. There is a Bantu administration section and there is a manager, an assistant manager and quite a number of officials. When those councils are merged and there is one large council such as this, a large amount of outstanding and efficient manpower will be saved and could be used in other directions. That is why I say it is necessary that we do something like this. Let us consider a township such as Meadowlands or Diepkloof. At the present moment there are probably more than 100,000 Bantu in Meadowlands and Diepkloof. This is a very large Bantu township. If one compares the administrative costs of Meadowland with those of other local authorities of a similar size, it is a considerable amount less.

My next point has a bearing on industry and the Bantu themselves. We must take into account the energy wasted each day by the Bantu in getting from their homes to their work. We must take that waste of energy into account as well, particularly when it comes to the good utilization of human material. Let us take the entire Witwatersrand complex as an example. Under the present system there are Bantu working in the eastern parts of Johannesburg, particularly in the Steeldale area, a large industrial complex, and these Bantu live in the western complex and in the mornings they first have to walk to the station, board that train, travel to another station and there catch a bus to their work. If we put this new method of mobilizing our Bantu labourers into operation, those Bantu need only, by means of an arrangement which can be made, travel a few miles from the location in the Natalspruit complex. In this way we can obtain a very good distribution and residential area allocation for our Bantu labour in these large complexes. For that reason I feel that industry will give and has given very great support to this legislation. As the hon. the Minister said here yesterday in his Second Reading speech, this legislation is supported in general by the Chamber of Industries, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, SEIFSA, and all these important organizations which deal with Bantu labour.

Why?

Why?

Because they want this labour.

But is it not necessary for these people’s labour to be close to the place where they work and that a proper arrangement to that effect should be made in this way? This legislation will make provision to make it possible for proper arrangements to be made so that these people can live close to their work.

Yesterday the hon. member for Transkei made a few points to which I should like to react. Before coming to that, however, I just want to mention one point. In this connection I want to refer to clause 10 (10) (a). Before I elaborate on this, I should like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the very good arrangement he has made in regard to the various employees who will quite probably become redundant in local authorities. I think the arrangement which has been made to absorb these people into other areas and to employ them in other directions, is a very good one. I am also grateful that it was possible to do so with complete unanimity in conjunction with the United Municipal Executive as well as with the staff associations of municipal workers.

I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to take another look at clause 10 (10) (a). It seems to me as if basically there is nothing wrong with it. But I should like to have it placed beyond any doubt that where a person’s conditions of service in smaller places are such that they do not clearly appear to fall under such circumstances as have been set out here, they will nevertheless be offered a post by the local authority. I want to suggest that the following words be inserted.

This is not the Committee Stage.

No, but I want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister so that he, before we come to the Committee Stage, can give this matter his attention. After the word “such” I should like the following words to be inserted: “Or alternative employment offered to him by said local authority.” I am asking this because an incorrect interpretation may possibly be given to the good intention of the clause in question, because in the first line of subsection 10 (a) reference is made to “employment has been offered in terms of subsection (6)”, which relates to employment offered by a board. As I have said, it may possibly be that the conditions of service of a person are not clear in this connection. I leave this idea to the good discretion of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Tell us in what line it is.

This is in line 42 on page 14.

Mr. Speaker, I should now like to refer to a few points the hon. member for Transkei made the other day. I want to say that I deplore the fact that the United Party tried to drag politics into this matter. I also deplore the United Party’s conduct when this measure was announced. What happened? Immediately afterwards a United Party city councillor of Johannesburg kicked up a great fuss about it. The heading to the newspaper article in which he elaborated on this was “New take-over boards gagged”. He then referred to this clause which the hon. member discussed. He said that these boards had now been gagged, that they could say absolutely nothing, that they were obliged to maintain secrecy. Surely the hon. member for Transkei knows that this is not the only legislation passed in this House by means of which certain restrictions are imposed on boards, and board members are not to divulge certain matters.

City councillors as well.

Yes, city councillors as well. They are also obliged to maintain secrecy. Provincial councillors, members of executive committees as well as members of the Cabinet are obliged to take certain oaths of secrecy. The hon. member also said: “Our view is that it is because of the interference by the State in the Administration of local authorities.” He then spoke of “harsh regulations”. He also said: “Municipalities are only the agents of this Government. Managers of Bantu municipal affairs have to be licensed by this Government.” The hon. member for Transkei is living in a fool’s paradise. Has the hon. member ever heard of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act (No. 25 of 1945)? This is a consolidation act which developed from Act No. 21 of 1925. If the hon. member reads section 22 of this Act he will know what is going on.

You did not follow what I meant.

But the hon. member stated here that “this Government is licensing Bantu municipal affairs officials”. This Act is an old act. Who was in power then? Who was in power when Act No. 25 of 1945 was passed? However, the hon. member is trying to make politics here in regard to this matter by saying that the Government is doing this or is doing that. The hon. member ought to know better. He should not try to make politics in this way. He also said: “It is for political reasons that it is the hon. the Minister’s policy to reduce all Bantu in the urban areas to migrants.” What are the Bantu who are in the White areas today? Last year we passed the Bantu Citizenship Act in this Parliament. What is the citizen of a foreign country if he goes to work in another country? When such people come to work in our cities, they are migrant labourers in terms of that Act in any way. It is not necessary now to come forward with legislation to make migrant labourers of those people. They are already.

What about clause 10?

What about it? [Time expired.]

I want to react to only one or two things that the hon. member for Langlaagte said because most of the other things I will deal with in the course of my speech. Sir, I am very surprised indeed to hear the hon. member talk of this Bill as representing “decentralization”, because the main object of this Bill, as I see it, is that it is going to centralize control in the hands of the State. The hon. member for Langlaagte also spoke about “we” in the Johannesburg City Council wanting decentralization. I want to remind him, Sir, that he was a member of a minority group in the council …

As you are here.

I can tell him that the Johannesburg City Council never at any stage discussed decentralization of this particular kind. The hon. member did again—and I am very pleased he did it— talk about the difference between facilities in Soweto and Meadowlands. I will deal very fully in the course of my speech with this particular aspect.

But, Sir, I want to come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. Because I believe that this Bill has very serious implications for the Bantu people of South Africa and for South African local government, I listened to the speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister with more than passing interest. To be perfectly sure that I had not missed anything I got hold of his Hansard and read through it very carefully too. In the speech which the hon. the Deputy Minister made he told us that the main object of the Bill was to promote greater labour mobility and, of course, to make the administration of Bantu Affairs easier over a wider area. Mr. Speaker, I can obviously have no quarrel with that. I believe this was the correct thing to do. But what does concern me is the fact that in his speech the hon. the Deputy Minister was completely silent on the question as to whether or not any steps have been taken to assess the feelings of the millions of Bantu that this Bill will affect very intimately. If the Deputy Minister had tried to ascertain the feelings of the Bantu people, particularly in the urban areas, by putting it to them in very plain language that the result of this Bill will be a further extension of the influence of the Government over their day-to-day lives and that the administration of Bantu Affairs will be taken out of the hands of the local authorities, then I believe quite sincerely that the Bantu people would have rejected this Bill even though it has a certain amount of merit with regard to greater labour mobility.

How many have you consulted?

Possibly more than that hon. member. Sir, I feel too that there can be no doubt that when you come along with legislation that must affect, in one way or another, the lives of more than 12¾ million Bantu and which must profoundly affect the 4½ million Bantu who are economically active, it is only right that an attempt at least should be made to ascertain the feelings of those particular people. I want to stress again that in the speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister not a word was said about any attempt at consultation with the people whom this Bill will affect to a very great degree.

From time to time, and it is becoming a regular pattern now, legislation is brought to this House which affects the lives of millions of Bantu and never at any stage can we feel that the people concerned have been consulted. We know that they have no choice in the matter and they can do nothing about it, but still I feel that at least an attempt should be made to ascertain what those people feel about the legislation. I now want to issue a very friendly challenge to the Deputy Minister. I believe he is a fair man and I believe that for once we should test the reaction of the Bantu people, and particularly the urban Bantu people. My challenge is that the hon. the Deputy Minister should hold up the passage of this Bill and that we should have a test referendum in a place like Soweto. I want to give the Deputy Minister the assurance that if this referendum is in favour of this particular Bill, we on this side of the House will have no objection at all to it. I issue this challenge in all seriousness because I believe that for once we should know in this House what the true reaction of the Bantu people of South Africa is in regard to legislation of this nature.

I will be perfectly frank and admit that at first glance the Bill before us does appear to have a certain degree of merit because it will allow the Bantu to sell his labour over a far wider area without forfeiting his residential qualification. I want to say that quite obviously this will lead to greater labour mobility, something which we on this side have been pleading for for many years and something which we feel is long overdue. I want to say, too, that it is very pleasing indeed to note that the hon. the Minister has apparently had second thoughts in regard to any ideas he might have had of tampering with the section 10 rights of the urban Bantu, because the Bill in its revised form will ensure that a Bantu living in a particular area will retain his section 10 rights even though he works and lives in another area. Quite obviously this is something which we like to see. I want to go further and say that I am very pleased that this was taken out of the Bill, because we all know that implications in regard to the Bantu section 10 rights were definitely contained in the draft form of the Bill.

I want to say that I find the greatest difficulty indeed in accepting at face value the Government’s sudden new altruistic approach to the lot of the urban Bantu. I say this advisedly because we know that the whole success or failure of the Government’s policy of separate development depends on luring the urban Bantu back to the so-called homelands by making life less tolerable in the urban areas for them. We know this to be true because I remember very well how the previous Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration told local authorities in no uncertain terms not to provide the amenities that would make the urban Bantu too comfortable, because this in effect would make it more difficult to get him to go back to his homelands. [Interjections.] If my memory serves me correctly, it was the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration himself who told us in this House in reply to an interjection that he would take away all the rights of the urban Bantu, including the rights under section 10, if he found it necessary.

Sir, I want to say that we on this side of the Home cannot be blamed if we believe that this Bill was not motivated in the first place with the idea of making life easier for the Bantu in the urban areas. We must quite obviously welcome any measure that will lead to a more rational approach to the whole question of increased labour mobility. This is particularly so in areas like the Reef and the Witwatersrand. This side of the House has always maintained that the question of greater labour mobility is basic to the whole question of making better, more constructive and productive use of our Bantu labour resources. Both employer and employee will therefore, quite obviously, welcome the provisions in this Bill which will have the effect of increasing labour mobility. This is only natural, and I want to say that if the Bill had rested there, it would have received the unqualified support of this side of the House. Unfortunately, however, as far as I am concerned, this Bill goes far deeper than merely promoting increased labour mobility.

What do you mean by “labour mobility”?

Ask the Minister. I believe that there are aspects of this Bill which must give cause for grave concern. I shall, during the course of my speech, deal with certain of these aspects. The more one analyses this Bill, the more obvious it becomes that its prime object is to place more power in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration so that he can wield the big stick more effectively and so that he can adopt a far tougher attitude towards what he calls the “impermanent Bantu” who have put down roots in the urban areas, and who have absolutely no desire or intention of going back to what he calls their particular homelands.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

Sir, I bow to the Deputy Minister’s knowledge of nonsense. There is no doubt that this Bill was motivated in the first place by a desire to give the hon. the Minister this particular power. We on this side of the House see in this Bill another drastic reduction in local authority autonomy and responsibility. I believe too that the result of this Bill will be to bring us nearer to a form of centralized bureaucratic control, which will bring with it the breaking-down of personal and administrative relationships that have been built up over a period of many years. I believe too that the Bill before us is another deliberate and blatant inroad into the concept of democratic living in South Africa, because it deliberately removes the local authority’s ability to develop its own area, and places the local authority at the mercy of a board appointed by the Government. It is a board which, by the very nature of things, can have very little intimate knowledge of the area concerned. It is also true that the hon. the Minister has the right under this Bill to appoint people to the board with a knowledge of employers, of the farming community and of local authorities. But the Bill places absolutely no obligation on the hon. Minister to appoint people who can truly represent those particular interests. Because this Bill is just another logical extension of the Government’s stubborn and dogmatic determination to carry out its policy of apartheid, we know that these appointees will be sympathizers of the Nationalist Party. I want to say that we know that this will be the case, because we remember only too well how the hon. Minister for Mines got up in this House and told us without even blushing that the first qualification for a person wanting to serve on a Government-appointed board is that he should be a good Nationalist. So we cannot be blamed for believing that the whole object of this Bill is to put more power into the hands of a power-hungry Minister. We know this, Mr. Speaker. I believe that this will take us a further step along the road to centralized bureaucratic control.

I am very well aware of the fact that the departments of non-European affairs, of local authorities, are merely agents of the Central Government and that, as such, they must carry out the wishes of the Minister. It is also very true that there is a world of difference between the humane way in which Bantu Affairs is administered by a local authority and the impersonal harshness which one finds in areas that fall under the control of the Central Government. I am going to mention quite a few examples of this. In this regard I want to use, as an example, Soweto, Meadowlands and Diepkloof. These were mentioned by the hon. member for Langlaagte. We know for a fact that, in Soweto, there are for instance 11,000 houses available at sub-economic rentals subsidized by the Johannesburg Council. We know that the Johannesburg City Council supplies medical services, over and above those supplied by the Province, at a cost of more than R1 million per annum. It is also perfectly true that the amenities and facilities which exist in Soweto today could not be maintained if it were not for the fact that these amenities are subsidized to the extent of R1¼ million per annum by the Johannesburg City Council.

Let us look at Meadowlands and Diepkloof. This was brought up as a shining example by the hon. member for Langlaagte. Let us look at this example. In Meadowlands and Diepkloof there are no houses available at sub-economic rentals. In Meadowlands and Diepkloof there is not a single welfare officer and there is also a complete lack of health visitors and mother and baby clinics. In the past local authorities like Johannesburg have acted as very effective buffers between the Government and the urban Bantu. A very classic example of this was when the Johannesburg City Council as a matter of principle refused flatly to remove Bantu servants working in Johannesburg to completely inadequate hospital accommodation at Diepkloof. They took the stand with such good effect that the Government in fact was obliged to climb down on the issue. This is the way that local authorities cushion the effects of the harsh approach which is normally taken by the Government towards the urban Bantu.

This is one of the reasons why we, on this side of the House, can never agree to the control of Bantu affairs being taken out of the hands of the local authorities, because we know that this will mean an extension of the influence of the Government over the day to day lives of the urban Bantu. We know what this influence means today. I want to use Soweto again as an example. After all, Soweto is the biggest Bantu complex in South Africa. Soweto is an enormous complex with a population of more than half a million people and this makes it the second-largest city in South Africa and also the seventh-largest on the continent of Africa. Because the Government insists on regarding Soweto as just another temporary Bantu township, it sets out to inhibit permanency by restricting business development to what the people require from day to day. As a result we find that in this enormous complex with more than half a million people you have exactly one regular cinema and not a single registered hotel. Can you wonder why the urban Bantu and why certain local authorities can never welcome this particular Bill? There is no doubt that the main object of the Bill is to give the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development more power, because we know that he wants to control all Bantu administration in South Africa. We know this, and as far as I see, this is just another step along that particular road. Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister and speakers on that side of the House can speak until they are blue in the face, but they will never convince me that this Bill was motivated in the first instance by a desire to give the Bantu a better deal and purely in the interest of labour mobility.

Mr. Speaker. I hope and believe that the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition heard the challenge of the hon. member for Johannesburg North. This afternoon that hon. member for Johannesburg North said that he challenged the Deputy Minister to hold a referendum in Soweto about this legislation. He also said that if the inhabitants, in other words the Bantu of Soweto, gave this legislation a majority vote the United Party would be prepared to accept the legislation. Am I right? That is the challenge the hon. member issued here to the Minister this afternoon. I now ask that hon. member: does he realize the implications of this challenge? Does the United Party realize that that hon. member for Johannesburg North wants to call the Bantu of Soweto in as arbiters between one White man and another in the Republic of South Africa? [Interjections.] That is what it amounts to. If the majority of the Bantu in Soweto vote for it, are they prepared to accept this legislation? They are prepared to forfeit all their principles, provided the Bantu agree. We shall show the United Party up by what the hon. member said here this afternoon.

Then the hon. member for Johannesburg North emphasized the “humane” idea of the Johannesburg City Council. I want to tell that hon. member that on this side of the House there are just as many members who are also members of other town councils and who honourably filled the position. We can tell them today that all those town councils—Springs, Brakpan, Benoni, Boksburg, Vanderbijlpark, Krugersdorp, Roodepoort—supply the same services as Johannesburg. The White account does not even have to subsidize the sixpence as far as that is concerned.

But there is something we are very grateful for. Two years ago, on 27th February, 1968, I moved a motion in this House.

Is that your own speech?

No, this is my motion. It reads—

On 27th February. 1968 I moved this motion. The seconder of this motion was the late Mr. Raubenheimer. the member for Langlaagte, who is no longer with us today. The other member was Dr. Otto. All three these members who supported this motion are members with long careers in local authorities. Dr. Otto was a councillor and mayor of Pretoria, and the late Mr. Raubenheimer was probably one of the most honoured councillors of the Johannesburg City Council. I leave my competence to the judgment of hon. members! But what happened? The same thing that happened here yesterday. The hon. member for Transkei stood up and moved the following amendment—

Now I want to tell the hon. member for Transkei that he must prove to me in this House today when this Government has ever encroached upon the rights of the local authorities as laid down in the Constitution or when it has ever acted inhumanly.

This afternoon I am very grateful for the fact that this Deputy Minister listened to very sensible advice that was given to him here two years ago. We are thankful that he did not listen to the hon. members of the Opposition.

But why did he not promote you?

Do not worry about promotion. It will come in due time. When one examines the urban areas legislation one will notice that since 1923, with the various amending Acts and the consolidation Acts, it has been stated clearly and unequivocally that the State determines the policy and that local authorities are the helpers in the implementation of that policy. And hon. members opposite will join me in agreeing about that. We now very frequently hear the accusation that the Central Government is interfering in local affairs, as we heard again from the hon. member two years ago when I move this motion of mine. I want to state today that this Government has never encroached upon the rights of any local authority as laid down in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. The National Party, the Minister of Bantu Administration and the Administrators frequently had to express themselves about local authorities who were not prepared to carry through and carry out the country’s policy. I should now very much like to come to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. At one time he was chairman of the Bantu Affairs Committee of the Johannesburg City Council. How many times was it not necessary for the Minister to speak to him as chairman because he was thwarting the country’s policy. And that hon. member and his city council were the ones who caused the most trouble in connection with the implementation of the country’s national policy. And if we think back to the chaos and the disorder …

Where?

In the Johannesburg City Council 22 years ago. It was this National Party that had to restore order. Those members were so stubborn that the Resettlement Board had to be established to do their work. They did not want to carry through the country’s policy. And if it had not been for the perseverance of the previous Minister of Bantu Administration in carrying through the policy of separate development, we would not have had the peace, quiet and order today. Then this policy of separate development would not have been carried through by local authorities either. From time to time the Ministers spoke to local authorities and pointed their responsibilities out to them. That is why I am grateful for the Bill that has been submitted here today. In this measure I see two very important tasks that must be implemented. The first task is to co-ordinate the local authorities in order to control the functions of such local authorities and to make a wider choice of work over a larger area possible for the Bantu whom, I want to state it very frankly here, are entitled to be in the controlled area. Secondly I see the task of implementing Government policy, thereby hastening the flow of Bantu back to the homelands. We do not mince matters, but say it very emphatically. This is how I see the task of these boards.

I want to congratulate the Minister because once again I see this Bill as a forerunner in the establishment of a board over a certain region or regions that can take over the obligations and responsibilities of more than one local authority. Since this board or boards is going to control the responsibility of Bantu administration in the more than one local authority area. I hope and trust that it will not stop at Bantu Administration, but that serious thought be given, in view of the White manpower shortage in our country, to whether the time has not come for various local authorities to consider whether the taxpayer would not gain more benefit from certain services such as the fire brigade, ambulance service, sewerage, water, electricity and bus services being co-ordinated and organized on a regional basis. The present system is an expensive one.

Serious attention must be given to whether even our local authorities cannot also control these specific services. I do not agree with the statement the hon. member for Yeoville made when he said during the Part Appropriation Debate that this legislation was going to establish more boards again, while we are having a tremendous manpower shortage. In this legislation I specifically see that we are going to reduce manpower, thereby being able to save the well-trained men for work in other sections.

We welcome this legislation in general. This legislation is also welcomed by the industrialists, and the hon. member for Johannesburg North will agree with me about this. As far back as 1954-’55, when I was chairman of the Rand Town Councils, we made strong pleas to the then Minister of Bantu Administration to the effect that there should be more freedom of movement for the Native to be able to sell his labour. But it was not possible at the time. We are very grateful that today this request has been complied with, a request that was made to the then Minister by the local authorities as far back as 1954.

But I also want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister that when the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards are established over a certain area, the situation of the Bantu townships, railway connections and industrial areas will be given proper consideration. We must, where possible, try to take the non-White to his place of work by the shortest route and in the shortest space of time. It is the custom among all our industrialists and merchants to let their employees begin at 7 o’clock in the morning. I want to make a serious plea today for consideration to be given to the possibility of letting various groups of workers begin at various times. One group can, for example, begin at 7 o’clock, a second group at 8 o’clock and a third group at 8.30. The latter two groups, for example, can then work an hour and an hour and a half later respectively. Tremendous capital expenditure must be incurred in establishing the necessary means of transport, such as bus and train services. If the industrialists would co-operate these Bantu need not form such long queues in order to wait for such a long time before they can catch a bus or a train.

But I also believe that while these Bantu are legally within the White area and want to sell their labour to us here, we must ensure that they have the necessary facilities to which they are entitled. I hope and trust that these proposed boards will ensure that those facilities are created for them and that they do not lack those facilities.

But when I come to the second important task of the board, i.e. to ensure that the Government’s policy is implemented, and to help with the return to their homelands of Bantu who cannot sell their labour any longer, then I want to say that I associate myself with the policy which the present hon. Minister of Bantu Administration put forward when he addressed the 14th annual congress of Sabra in September 1963.

Tell us if the industrialists accept your second statement?

It does not matter to me what the industrialists accept; I am the policy maker of this country and that is the policy of this Government. I will not call in the Bantu of Soweto to tell me what I must do in this country. Sir, I quote what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said to Sabra in September 1963 (translation)—

Sir, if there was ever a statement with which I am in agreement, then it is this statement the present Minister of Bantu Administration made before Sabra, when he said they were only present here because they sell their labour to us.

Most surprising.

No, it is not “most surprising”; it is our policy.

For what purpose are they here then, according to the United Party?

Then for what other reason are the Bantu here?

Why are they so silent now?

Sir, as an ex-councillor, an ex-mayor and president of the Transvaal town councils for two consecutive years, I also want to pay my tribute today to all those town councils and those loyal officials who carried through the Government’s policy throughout this difficult period of 22 years. If it were not for the fact that they had carried through the Government’s policy, we would not have been living here today in peace, quiet and order. We want to say thank you to all those town councils and officials for the good service they rendered.

But, Sir, I want to go further. The question is so often asked today why these matters are being taken out of the hands of local authorities. Sir, do you know why this is the case? I am now speaking as an ex-councillor. The local authorities do not only deal with Bantu affairs. Bantu affairs is regarded as a subdivision of local authority affairs. This applies to all local authorities. They have much more to do than just the administration of Bantu affairs. I want to say this to the hon. member for Florida, or rather Jeppes; he shifts around so frequently that one never knows where he is. Sir, the hon. member for Stilfontein can attest to the truth of what I am saying here. In our time it was not so easy to get anybody to act as chairman of the Bantu Advisory Council. Councillors were not inclined to act as chairman of a Bantu Advisory Council. One always had to cast about for a city councillor to do that work, and I want to pay tribute here to the hon. member for Stilfontein. He wanted to do that work very much, and for many years he was Chairman of the Bantu Advisory Council of Brakpan.

But let us go further. There is a very strong feeling in many town councils among their members and even among the officials that Bantu Affairs is out of place in a local authority. They feel that the Government should control Bantu Affairs from top to bottom. There is a feeling among our people that the Government’s policy must be implemented from top to bottom. The local authorities are not always attuned to implementing Government policy. There is always friction in the local authorities. They do not always want to carry through Government policy. Sir, I speak from first-hand experience. One local authority handles one Bantu township in one way and another local authority handles another Bantu township in another way. There is always friction; the one gives too little and the other again gives too much; there is no single norm that is applied throughout. We therefore feel that when these control boards function there will be one norm applied throughout, with the result that the Bantu in one Bantu township will not feel that they are being neglected by contrast with other Bantu in another Bantu township.

I want to dispel altogether the illusion that they are not treated properly. They are all treated very well. Sir, here I want to call upon a very good witness. You know about the investigation that took place here in connection with the Paarl riots in April 1963. In April 1963 Mr. Jan Steyn, who is today one of our very fine judges in the Republic of South Africa said the following, according to the Cape Times of 9th April, 1963—

That is the Department’s argument.

It may be the Department’s argument, but this is a leading Judge, and that is what he stated. But, Sir, I want to go further. I want to tell hon. members opposite—and I want to bring it very strongly to the Minister’s attention—that serious problems arise in our Bantu townships at the present moment. The Bantu is becoming particular when he comes here to look for work. Sir, go and have a look at the number of Bantu sitting each morning at the labour bureau of the Bantu Administration offices. When they are asked whether they want to work on the Railways, at Escom or in the building industry, or at any other place where hard manual labour is to be done, one finds that they do not want to accept that work. But if you go to the Bantu townships, Sir, you will see that there are thousands of Bantu there who are walking around jobless and who do not want to work. At the same time you find that the Bantu Commissioner issued permits to contractors and local authorities to recruit labour in the homelands. That labour is then taken from the homelands, but here within the Bantu townships we find thousands of Bantu who are loafers and do not want to work.

Is there work for them in the homelands?

That hon. member must keep quiet; I am speaking at the moment. Today I want to make a plea to the Minister that when a house is allocated in a Bantu township it should not be allocated to the Bantu but to the industrialist, merchant or businessman. Sir, if those houses are allocated to businessmen, merchants and industrialists, they will only house those Bantu there who are working for them. I say this because the Bantu are only in the urban area in order to sell their labour here, and any Bantu who is not selling his labour here must leave this area; he must go to his homeland. That is why I want to make a strong plea to the Minister that the houses be allocated to the industrialists and the merchants. Then we will not have to issue so many permits to people for the recruitment of labour in the homelands. Sir, I want to put it to you very clearly today: I regard it as the task, the responsibility and the duty of these administration boards to help implement Government policy. If influx control had been applied properly in the past, as it is being applied today, we would not have had the present position in the Witwatersrand-Pretoria complex of having 2.6 million Bantu there at the moment. With the natural growth there will be 3.4 million Bantu present in these areas in 1980. This will mean that 178,000 extra dwellings will have to be built on 11,000 morgen of land. I want to allege that more than half of these Bantu are economically unproductive in this area. This will mean that we have to erect housing, schools, hospitals and other institutions for these people. I now ask this. I see that it will be the duty and responsibility of this board to keep in close contact with the homelands in order to help develop them, and I want to pay tribute to all those local authorities that are already co-operating on that project. We shall have to ensure that a transport system from the homelands is created to bring these Bantu to our factories on a daily basis.

Jumbo jets.

Hon. members may laugh. Just as we have brought about separation between the white man and the black man in our cities, so shall we develop the homelands and inaugurate a transport system to bring the Bantu from their homelands to the cities. Do you think it is impossible to bring the Bantu from Groblersdal to the East Rand by means of a transport system? Do you think it is impossible to bring them from Mafeking to the West Rand by means of a transport system? After all, we are living in an age of speed. We have faith in the National Party and in the future of this country, and whatever hon. members may do, I am telling you that the policy of the National Party will be to place the Bantu in the White area back in their homelands, and they will only be present here because they are selling their labour and nothing but their labour.

We have had an almost frightening display of honesty from the hon. member for Brakpan. That is the only way I can describe it, and all the smooth and sanctimonious words we have had from the Deputy Minister when he introduced the Bill I am afraid have been washed away by the flood of oratory we have just listened to from the hon. member for Brakpan. I am convinced that he is giving us a real exposé of the heart of this Bill. Two things are quite obvious from what he said this afternoon. The one is his attitude towards the African, which is not that of an administrator or person in authority over human beings; it is the attitude of a bureaucrat towards economic units. That is all, and nothing else. He is not dealing with people or with human beings; he is dealing with a pair of hands that have been put on earth to serve the White man, and the aspirations and desires and needs as human beings of these people mean nothing whatsoever to the hon. member. Well. I want to tell him he is not dealing with machines or with trek oxen and he is not just dealing with pairs of Black hands, but he is dealing with human beings and he ought to start remembering that. Even the hon. the Minister’s circular, to which I will come a little later, tried to point out that it was human beings that we were dealing with.

The other interesting thing is that as far as he is concerned, these people should be used as forced labour if necessary.

Nonsense!

Yes. He said one could go to any employment bureau and see these people sitting around there and they will not take any of the hard work. He says they must go. I want to tell him something. There is a simple solution to that. Pay them a decent wage and then they will do the hard work. In every country of the world some people have to do hard work, but in every other country of the world unskilled, hard work is decently rewarded. But it is not rewarded properly in South Africa, firstly because the people concerned are not White, secondly because the people concerned do not have the vote, and thirdly because they do not have trade unions. They are all paid at rates of wages which do not attract them to do the hard unskilled work.

Secondly, I want to point out to the hon. member that his passion for uniformity is another matter which strikes horror in my breast. Everything must be uniform. The fact that one city may differ completely from another city by virtue of its natural resources, its geographical position and the people who inhabit it, apparently does not occur to the hon. members. Everything must be uniform. This is part and parcel of the Nationalists’ passion for uniformity in education and everything else. Now we see it in Bantu administration as well.

I want to say that the hon. Deputy Minister told us that he had consulted a large number of bodies before he went ahead with this Bill. The Secretary for Bantu Administration mentioned such bodies as the Federated Chamber of Industries, Assocom the Handelsinstituut, the Institute of Administrators of Non-European Affairs and the United Municipal Executive.

They supported it.

Yes, some support it and some don’t. There is by no means unanimity in this regard. It is quite wrong to give the impression that there is unanimity.

By far the majority supported it.

Well, even if there was wide-spread support, there was still a considerable amount of disagreement among the municipal administrators. I believe that the hon. member for Johannesburg North was absolutely right when he asked why the Government has not consulted the African people. To my mind those people are most concerned with this Bill. They are more concerned than the Chamber of Industries and Assocom or any of the other bodies concerned. And interestingly enough, there are bodies which could have been consulted, bodies which have been set up by the Government itself for consultation purposes. Never mind about a referendum and leaving it in the hands of the Bantu to decide whether or not Government policy should be carried out, but there are the urban Bantu Councils set up as consultative bodies by this Government itself. The Bill was passed in 1961 and since then something like 23 Urban Bantu Councils have been set up. There are 13 in the Transvaal, 7 in the Orange Free State, 2 in the Cape Province and one in Natal. Why did the Government not even consult the Urban Bantu Councils, who are most concerned with what is going to happen to the administration of the Bantu urban areas? These are representative bodies. The Government changed them into elected bodies not so long ago, in 1970 in fact. Why were they not consulted?

That will come. You are jumping to conclusions.

No, you did not mention them. If I am coming to conclusions that are wrong, all I can say is that it is because the hon. Deputy Minister has not given this House the correct information; nor has the Secretary, because he set out the list of people who had been consulted and the Urban Bantu Councils were not among them. If he has not consulted them, I want to ask him what sort of race relations he thinks this is going to engender. This is an arrogant attitude on behalf of the Government. It is not quite as bad as the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Brakpan, but it is a very arrogant attitude indeed, that the most sophisticated class of African, namely the urban Africans who have been living permanently in these areas, were not consulted about their future. Nor are they to be given any representation on these boards. There are four classes of people who will be represented on these boards; the people who have a wide acquaintance or knowledge of Bantu labour matters and agriculture. People’s knowledge of the use of African labour and the needs of agriculture comes first, of course, for the urban boards —they are primarily urban boards; secondly, people who are acquainted with Africans in industry; people who are acquainted with the local authorities and the people who have a knowledge of the governmental policy itself. Thus four classes of people, who are to be represented on the Board, are to be nominated. They are all, of course, nominated. No one gets elected in this regard, in terms of the Government’s usual bureaucratic practices. But is there any representation from the urban Bantu councils? Of course not. The people who know most about the urban Africans and the matters which concern them, are the people themselves and they are not to be represented on this board. We are used to this sort of thing from the Government but, I must say, to call this a widely based board with representation of people who know all about the urban African, is to my mind sheer nonsense when the very people concerned are neither consulted, nor given representation on the board.

I was very glad to hear from the hon. the Minister when he introduced the Bill that clause 13 (7) is going to be amended. The way it stands at present it looks as if the Government is out to snitch as much of the funds as it can from the urban areas and divert them to the homelands. Already the Government is quite busy doing a lot of this. Some of this is done by legislation and the rest is done by what is known as “gentle persuasion” of the local authorities. Some, of course give it willingly, because as the hon. member for Brakpan has pointed out, there are large numbers of city councils which are in fact composed of people who support the Government’s policy. The largest ones, like Johannesburg and Cape Town, in fact, are not so composed. Even so these councils have been persuaded to divert quite a lot of their funds to the Government for expenditure in the homelands and not on the amenities that should be provided for the people who live in the urban areas. The excuse given is that a large number of migratory workers are in the urban areas and therefore some of the money should go back to the homelands for them to enjoy it. I want to point out that these people spend nine-tenths of their working lives in the urban areas and they want to enjoy amenities where they live and where they work and not where they do not live and where they do not work. Already the Government is using considerable amounts of these funds. A couple of years ago the use of the finances of the Bantu Liquor Account were changed so that the Government should get a larger percentage from it. Already there was a big amount from the Bantu Beer Account, but that was increased as well. As a result more and more moneys are being diverted from providing amenities in the urban areas to the provision of amenities in the homelands. I might say there is considerable disquiet over what is to happen to the special welfare funds which are already in the hands of the Bantu Revenue Accounts of the local authorities. I know that the Bill provides that they should be used for the same purposes. But complete discretion used to be granted to the administrator of the fund. Without further red tape and without getting instructions from Pretoria, he could administer those welfare funds and the special accident funds immediately. I want to know what is going to happen to the tidy amounts of the special welfare funds which are in the hands of the Johannesburg City Council, when the Government takes over. As it is, the Government is already trying to direct how the bursaries which are granted by the Johannesburg Municipality, should be administered. They say these bursaries must go to the homelands and the children taking up these bursaries must go to school in the homelands. Thereby, I might say, they are sacrificing their rights under section 10 of the Urban Areas Act. It is so, because unless all precautions are taken when those children wish to return from the schools in the homelands, they have great difficulty in getting back. One of the conditions laid down by the Government when the bursaries are taken up is that a certain number of years must be spent thereafter in the homelands. There is no doubt, whatever the hon. the Minister says and whatever the hon. member for Langlaagte says, that the amenities which are being provided by some of the municipalities have been far better than those provided by the Government. This applies to the Johannesburg Municipality in particular.

Last year I mentioned to this House what the Diepkloof hostel was like and I compared it with the hostels which are being built by the municipalities. I do not know whether, when the hon. member for Langlaagte was doing one of his usual prowls around Meadowlands, he had a look at the Diepkloof hostel.

Without an escort.

Oh, without an escort! I will come with him next time to provide the escort. I am sure he has seen that there have been a few improvements, like hot water during the week, which was not considered necessary originally. Hot water was only considered necessary for weekends, in the beginning. It was considered quite adequate for these people, together with the awful, austere and really stark conditions in those hostels. Would the hon. member like to spend one night in one of those hostel beds? Of course not, because he does not consider himself on the level of those who are not really considered as people by hon. members on that side of the House. The Johannesburg Municipality has provided subsidies to the extent of about R1¼ million per annum, I think it is little enough in all conscience for what was really the massive work corps of the City of Johannesburg. This is not enough to provide for such a lot of people.

Why do they come to Daveyton then?

They come there because it is not a bad area at all. All the same, this fund is to be self-balancing if I read the Bill correctly. Not only is the fund to be self-balancing, the board’s fund, but they also have to pay out their own members out of this. So there will be no more subsidies provided by the municipalities. What is going to happen to the subsidized housing? The Government will keep the sub-economic housing level at the ludicrously low level of R30 per month. R30 per month! The Johannesburg Municipality raised it to R40 and they subsidized to that level. But everybody who has taken the trouble to study the cost of living today knows that R40 is also a ludicrously low figure. Indeed, R73 per month is considered the poverty datum figure in an urban area for a man, his wife and four children. That figure is worked out at the lowest possible subsistence figures. What is going to happen if this board is going to become self-balancing? All I can say is that the rent is going to go up, because that is going to be the only way the board is going to get its revenue. So the screws are going to be turned even harder.

I must say that the hon. member for Brakpan made it very clear what the main objective of this measure is, apart from metropolitan development, with which I, by the way, agree. I think there should be metropolitan development on the lines that he mentioned for example, as regards ambulance services and everything else. That is a sensible and intelligent idea. I think that increasing the area of mobility for African labour is also a good idea. The hon. member who asked what labour mobility is, is not here. It is, of course, the ability of labour to move freely from one area to another, where it is going to be employed. It is something that everybody has been asking for for a very long time. I have nothing to say against that, except that I do not think the sugar-coated pill is quite as attractive as it appears to be at first glance, for the simple reason that this could have been done simply by amending section 40 of the Urban Areas Act. It is not necessary to change the whole basis of administration. Why could the hon. the Minister not simply amend that section?

I will reply to that.

I wish he would. I may well be wrong, but as far as I can see, he only had to amend section 40 of the Urban Areas Act. That is the section which deals with the co-operation of local authorities for the purposes of Bantu administration. I do not know why he had to take over the whole of Bantu administration in order to widen the mobility of labour in the prescribed areas.

As regards the rest of the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan, he made it quite clear that really the basic objective of this Bill was for the Government to carry out its policy of trying to get the Africans to go back to the homelands and to get rid of all the so-called, not what this hon. Deputy Minister, but his predecessor called, “superfluous appendages”. In other words, anybody who was no longer working, irrespective of the fact that he had lived a family life in the urban area, that his family was still there, that they were perfectly prepared to look after him or her, had to go back to the homelands, upon which they might never have set eyes. Now this Bill is introduced because presumably the local authorities are not carrying out the Government’s instructions enthusiastically enough. This can be the only reason, because if they were carrying out the instructions enthusiastically enough, the Government would not need to take over the administration of these areas.

There was a famous circular which was issued in 1967, which set the situation out very clearly. It was issued by the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development to all officers of the department and all magistrates and assistant magistrates employed by the South African and Transkeian Governments. It is Circular No. 25 of 1967. I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister is very familiar with it. It says exactly what the hon. member for Brakpan has been saying and reads as follows—

That is exactly what the hon. member said. It went on to say—

Of course, classified as “unproductive” are the aged, the unfit, the widows and the women with dependent children, as well as Bantu on European farms who become superfluous as a result of age and disability. I have said once before that in civilized societies those are the very people that are specially looked after and cared for. But because these are not regarded as people, they are just shoved out, unwanted and uncared for. The circular goes on to say—

Mark you! —

In other words, it is not only the people who do not qualify who are to be persuaded to leave, but also the people who qualify. I want the House to know that this persuasion is going on all the time. Women in the Western Cape, particularly, are constantly being visited by officials who try to persuade them to go back to the homelands, even though they qualify to be here. Most of them are helpless creatures. They do not know their legal rights and sign a form or put a cross on a form which says “I am going willingly to Mdantsane, Ilinge, Sada” or one of these other horrible resettlement areas. They do this even though some of them qualify to stay here. Stellenbosch is a case in point. Nine families at least which I know of, who qualify to be here, have been broken up, the women and children were sent away to Mdantsane or other places and the men have been told that they can stay and get hostel accommodation. They can stay but their families have gone and to all extent and purposes they enjoy the same rights as migrant workers. I think this is a horrible policy and it is being carried out because the Government is beside itself because of the failure of its policies. When the magic date, 1978, was first proposed in this House by Dr. Verwoerd, there were 20 years in hand. To my recollection it was roundabout 1959 when the magic date of 1978 was first proposed as the year when the Africans would willingly stream back to the homelands. Years have gone by and the Africans have not willingly streamed back to the homelands. For obvious economic reasons as was stated by an hon. Senator yesterday in another context, the homelands cannot compete with the existing urban areas in employment opportunities. Nothing in the world is going to persuade those people to return to the homelands except Governmental action. Where the authorities have not been acting enthusiastically enough the Government is now going to step in and sweep those people out willy-nilly, whether they want to go, whether they qualify or whether they do not qualify. That is the real basis of this Bill.

There are only seven years to go until 1978 and that date is drawing uncomfortably close. I want to say that the hon. the Minister of Community Development did a very smart thing when he hot-footed it out of that portfolio and got himself another one, because he was in imminent danger of having to carry out the promise he made that he would resign if by 1978 the Africans had not streamed back. This hon. Deputy Minister has made no such rash promises. He is very wise. It does not mean, however, that he is not going to carry out this policy as fast as he can in order to get the Africans to move. Different methods of persuasion are used. Officials bring pressure to bear on mostly helpless women, divorced women, deserted women and widows who have to get out of their houses because, although they qualify, there is nowhere else for them to go in the urban area. Funds for housing are also kept at a minimum. In Johannesburg alone I think there is a shortage of some 23,000 housing units.

The other day you said 30,000.

I made a mistake, It was 21,000 and the shortage increases by 2,000 per year. This shortage is in respect of qualified persons who are in employment in urban areas. There is also a shortage of something like 18,000 hostel beds for qualified men working in the urban areas. Municipalities are being starved of funds. This is another way of persuading people to move. Already there are all sorts of provisions that have to be satisfied before Africans are allowed to take up houses. There are nine different and difficult provisions. There are all sorts of easy ways in which a permit to have a family living in a house can be cancelled. If a man is out of work for more than 30 days, the permit may be cancelled. I do not say it is being done, but it can be done under the present laws.

Finally, I want to say that this sugar-coated pill clause 11 of the Bill, is an improvement. It will increase the mobility of labour to quite a considerable extent. It will, however, not solve the actual shortage of labour. It will certainly not solve the shortage of labour in the Western Province, because here the shortage of labour is due not to the inability of the labour to move from one area to the other so much, although the Divisional Council and the City Council areas have been separate and will now presumably be fused; the real reason why there is a shortage of labour is because of the 5 per cent reduction per annum that the Government demands of employers of African labour, the Physical Planning Act and also the various job reservations that have been applied to Africans working in the Western Province. Even in the other areas where the 5 per cent and job reservation provisions do not operate, it will be the Physical Planning Act which will make it difficult for these people to work. I would suggest that there are so many more important things that the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister could be getting on with if they really wanted to do something for the better administration of the Bantu people, for whom after all they are responsible. The things they should do which are already the Central Government’s concern, rather than taking over more responsibilities which had formerly been those of the local authority, would be to see about improving wages, for this after all falls under the Central Government. They should see about the putting down of crime, which also falls under the Central Government, and also see about the improvement of transport. I must say that when the hon. member for Brakpan talked about shunting people backwards and forwards daily from Groblersdal to Johannesburg, I really wondered whether the hon. member did not have a touch of the sun. We cannot supply transport from Soweto to Johannesburg. Soweto is about 10 or 11 miles outside Johannesburg. There we have hopelessly inadequate, vastly overcrowded trains, accidents, shortages of bridges, platforms and of all facilities that are needed Africans standing in queues for hours from 5 o’clock in the morning to get to work by 8 o’clock. Yet this hon. gentleman, who once had pretensions to become a Commissioner-General, if I am not much mistaken, had the impertinence to propose that we can fly Africans, or shunt them, or monorail them, or whatever he was going to do with them—probably put them under the ground, I should think, if he could— backwards and forwards from areas as far as Groblersdal to Johannesburg. I am sorry the hon. member for Brakpan has left the House. However, I want to say to him and the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister that they should first attempt to get the Africans under reasonable conditions from Soweto, which is 11 or 12 miles outside Johannesburg, to their places of work before they start indulging in flights of fancy about getting Africans from Groblersdal to Johannesburg.

They will buy Jumbo jets.

Yes, probably.

These matters that I have suggested the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister devote themselves to are already the concern of the Central Government. I think they have already more hay on their forks than they can possibly cope with without taking on any more administrative jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I probably am one of the unluckiest members in this House, because whenever we discuss this aspect I have to follow upon the hon. member for Houghton in the debate. I once said the hon. member for Houghton and I were both migrant labourers; we spent six months in Johannesburg and six months here in the Cape. In this regard we are no different.

She, too, comes without her family.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on this fine piece of legislation which has been drafted and which constitutes a step in the right direction for the future. It is a step in the right direction. People who have no experience of this matter will make a fuss. This afternoon, for example, we heard most of the hon. members on the opposite side of this House who discussed this legislation concentrating on Soweto. This legislation is intended for the whole of the Republic of South Africa and not only for Soweto. The hon. member who opened this debate for the opposite side also ventured to deal with an area. I assume that he knows the Transkei, but I think that as far as Soweto is concerned he is as much of a stranger as I would be if I were to land in Jerusalem. This afternoon I want to pay special tribute to the various city councils that have been rendering such fine service during the past years. With the introduction of this Bill we are not failing to appreciate the fine service rendered by the various councils in the past. This legislation envisages a step in the right direction in order to obtain even better service. This is why I support all the clauses of this Bill.

It took a great deal of time to draft this legislation. It required a great deal of study and many discussions. The first persons who were approached by the Department in this regard were the administrators of Bantu Affairs in the various large municipalities. I do not know whether the present Bantu affairs administrator of Johannesburg supports this legislation. I believe Mr. Carr does not support it but as far as I know all the Bantu affairs administrators, or directors, as they were called in the past, support this legislation as being a step in the right direction. Discussions were also held throughout the country with the United Municipal Executive and they, too, supported this legislation. Problems did arise but everybody agreed that it would be possible to overcome these problems. In this regard I have in mind a particular problem which probably arose with regard to the local authorities, i.e. the danger that many of their officials who have been in their employment for many years would be taken up in the new board. Each municipality and each province have, as hon. members know, a pension fund for their officials. Therefore the danger exists that a great deal of money will be withdrawn from these pension funds. However, the assurance has been given—and this Bill contains a provision to that effect—that each official taken up into a board will receive the same facilities and privileges as those which he enjoyed under his local authority. Consequently those privileges are guaranteed. This being the case, surely there is nothing which the officials need fear. This afternoon we learnt that hon. members on that side of this House opposed this Bill. On what grounds are they doing so? Is it not so that local authorities have been acting merely as the agents of the Department of Bantu Administration? Each post created in that department had to be approved by the Minister of Bantu Administration. The budget of the Department of Bantu Affairs and Local Authority also had to be submitted to the Department of Bantu Administration for approval. No money may be spent by a local authority if it does not obtain approval to spend that money from the Department of Bantu Administration.

What is this fuss about and what are we in actual fact taking away? That is why I convey my thanks to the city councils that have been doing this work over the years and have been doing it well. But what are we in actual fact taking away from the city councils? If a road, school hall, cinema or swimming pool had to be built, the approval of the Department of Bantu Affairs had to be obtained. The city councils were empowered by regulation to spend those moneys from certain funds. But the city council was acting directly as agent of the State. For that reason I cannot understand the fuss made by the hon. members on the opposite side of this House.

I now come to the Bantu themselves. I know that three-quarters of those hon. members do not know when a Bantu qualifies to live in a city. I now turn to the member for Hougton. If such a Bantu is a born Johannesburg and he qualifies to live in Soweto, I am not depriving him of any privilege by placing him under the management of this board. Indeed, I am giving him a greater privilege. Before he was restricted to one local authority. Now a board like this will be constituted by four or five large municipalities. I think the idea is to decrease the number of municipalities from a few hundred to 40 or 50 in order to obtain more effective administration. I do not believe there will be more than approximately 40 or 50. Perhaps there will be 60 such boards at the very most. I doubt whether there ever will be as many as that.

That is too many.

An hon. member on this side of the House says that is too many. In my opinion, too, that may be so. I am merely mentioning this number because a final decision has not been taken in this regard as yet. Where such a Bantu used to be restricted to Brakpan for the purposes of employment, he will now have the privilege of taking up employment in Benoni, Springs and Boksburg as well. This is a privilege which he does not have at the moment.

This legislation is not necessary for that.

The hon. member for Turffontein has no conception of what I am discussing now. We are giving those Bantu that right as well. At the introduction of the Bill the hon. member for Houghton said it was something good. I agree with that. It will reduce the labour problems which exist today. It will bring great relief as far as labour problems are concerned. I am speaking from experience when I say that if municipality A has 100 or 200 surplus Bantu workers today it keeps them in reserve as it is afraid that it may need them tomorrow or the day after. Such a municipality will not make its surplus of Bantu workers available to municipality B or C. This is another thing we are envisaging with this legislation. I say this legislation will be to the advantage of the Bantu. Is it not true that history and our legislation as a whole prove that the National Party has always tried to have justice done to the Bantu? The Bantu is not being used simply as a means of finding political ammunition, as hon. members of the Opposition always do. We want to give those people their rightful share. Let us, who have served on the large councils, search our own hearts and ask ourselves whether over the past years we have not unnecessarily been engaged in building empires. This is precisely what has happened. With the establishment of these boards I believe that we may be able, as the hon. member for Brakpan said, to employ a large section of the manpower usefully at other places in municipalities where there may be a shortage.

I just want to reply in brief to what the hon. member for Transkei said when he dealt with Diepkloof and Meadowlands. I cannot allow this to pass. Why were those townships established by the Resettlement Board? If the Opposition wants to cast stones, was it not because the City Council of Johannesburg had been inefficient and incompetent in the provision of housing to its Bantu? Was it not because the City Council of Johannesburg had neglected its duty to clear places which were squatters’ camps? People were living there under chaotic circumstances. The city council opposed the establishment of the townships. For that reason the Department of Bantu Affairs was obliged to establish those two townships under the Resettlement Board. I am pleased the hon. member for Houghton said, when she referred to the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan, that the council was still not able even at this stage to transport the people from Soweto to Johannesburg, not to mention transporting them from Grobblersdal to Pretoria and Johannesburg. Whose fault is that? Is it the fault of the Government or the railways, or is the cause to be found in the laxity of the Johannesburg Municipality in that it has not been able in its entire existence to deal satisfactorily with even the question of transport? But I go even further, seeing that we are now dealing with the question of transport. Where does the money go which the local authorities receive on the bus services for the transport of the Bantu? I know I am touching on a sore point now. Is the Bantu bus service not the only paying service? I believe that these moneys will also go to the boards. Sir, I do not want to take anything away from the White man, but it is not fair that the bus service of the Black man has to subsidize the bus service of the White man, because his bus service pays and that of the White man does not. I do not believe that the profits on the Bantu bus service should be used to offset these losses. No, Sir, let us be consistent in our actions. This legislation with a view to the future; it is a step in the right direction; it is a step which affords protection to all. The local authority, the employer within the area of the local authority and the department as well as the Bantu are being afforded protection in this legislation.

Should he not be consulted?

Sir, I have no right to tell Brandt in Germany what laws he should pass, and I do not believe either that the inhabitant of Soweto—and I am being very honest—should tell the Whites here what laws the Whites should pass. The inhabitants of Soweto will remain and work here, but in my country he will be selling his labour to me and I shall treat him with respect. I regard the Bantu as being a foreigner or an immigrant here, because he has his own homeland, which will be developed to the best of our ability so that he, too, will have a home one day.

He was there before you.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District knows nothing about the Bantu and about politics.

He does not know the history of South Africa.

This legislation, as I have said, has been discussed time and again since 1910, for example, in 1923 as well. When Act No. 25 of 1945 was placed on the Statute Book by a United Party Government—I do not know how many members on the opposite side were here at that time—there were also differences of opinion about that Act, but it still is on the Statute Book today. Here we are clearly stating that we are once again giving the guarantee that nothing will be taken away from the non-White. But the homelands must be developed, and with the establishment of these boards I believe it will be possible to use the necessary funds which have accumulated at the various local authorities to develop not only Bantu townships but also the homelands to a large extent. The Black man of the Republic of South Africa—I am speaking only of the Bantu—realizes today that he can contribute to the development of his own homeland, a privilege which we as Whites did not have. I believe that we shall gain their co-operation. If the Bantu Advisory Councils—I do not know whether they have been approached—which represent the populations of the various Bantu townships were to be approached, I believe 80 per cent of them will vote in favour of this legislation. I cannot say with certainty what this percentage will be, but I can virtually give the assurance that it will be as high as that. This afternoon I learned from the hon. member for Langlaagte of the thousands of rand in subsidies paid from the White account to the Johannesburg Municipality for Soweto. Today Soweto is the only Bantu township which is being subsidized from a White account because its administration is so poor.

I do not have much time left and I should like to refer to clause 11 (5) on page 22. What this amounts to is in brief that there are prescribed areas as well as non-prescribed areas. I should like to address an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister and now I should like to have his attention for a few seconds, if possible. Since certain powers are now being given to certain officials of these boards by subsection (5), I should like to ask him to give consideration to taking the following steps on behalf of the agricultural community. I should like to read it out to you, Sir. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to effect the following amendment to this legislation, if possible. I should like to suggest for the consideration of the Minister an amendment to be effected in the Committee Stage to clause 11 (5), line 1, page 22. I want to ask that the powers of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner which will be converted into those of a board shall not be converted immediately but only when the Minister so orders.

In addition I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that the function of a labour liaison officer, who is a statutory appointment, can also be entrusted to such a board very advantageously. I should now like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider making provision in a relevant subsection also for a labour liaison officer. The object of my first request is to give the board an opportunity of functioning properly first and of deciding for itself which of the functions of a Bantu Affairs Commissioner can be transferred to it and whether it deems it fit to take on a labour liaison officer. In that case the Minister may in turn decide whether he deems it desirable to transfer the function already at that stage. I am making my suggestions on the basis of what is contained in clause 11. I am doing so as one can never be careful enough. Precipitate action can easily be taken, especially in view of the fact that large municipalities already exist with extensive agricultural activities on its boundaries. These boards will be established for the whole of the Republic of South Africa outside the homelands.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you once again …

This is the fourth time!

It will never be the privilege of the hon. member that I shall have to thank him. If this must be the case one day, let it only happen when both of us are walking behind AVBOB! I want to thank the Minister once again for this fine and well-considered piece of legislation which he is placing on the Statute Book. It is a step in the right direction and I am eagerly looking forward to its coming into operation.

The hon. member who has just sat down, kicked up a big fuss especially in regard to one aspect. He maintained that this measure would be a step forward in the development of the Bantu. The first point I want to make is that we are deeply indebted to the hon. member for Brakpan for what he made very clear. It relates to what the hon. member for Stilfontein said. In addition, we must be grateful for the statements made by the hon. member. I do not believe his party is really grateful to him, but I think we can indeed be grateful.

When the hon. the Deputy Minister introduced this legislation, he said that it was mainly “an honest and sincere effort to place the administration of Bantu affairs in White areas on a sounder and more efficient basis”. In other words, it was a tremendously calm attitude. We were only dealing with a little administrative matter here. But what happened then? The hon. member for Brakpan came along and made it very clear to us that it formed part of the larger political development. He linked it with that. When the hon. member for Stilfontein speaks of the road ahead, I think it is quite plain that this measure should be seen as part of the large whole and not as a more effective administrative step.

I must also come back to another point raised by the hon. member for Brakpan. He had such a great deal to say about the peace and quiet prevailing in the cities as a result of the Government’s policy. But then he read a quotation from what a judge had said in regard to the riots in Paarl. Now I just want to ask him: When did they take place? Was it under United Party rule or administration? He must think of that when he speaks of peace and quiet.

†Through the years we have learnt that the policy of the Government is incapable of being implemented without at least having two effects. The first one is the drastic curtailment of the rights and powers of individuals, groups of individuals, organizations or, as it is in this particular case, local authorities. This is the first effect whenever we deal with the application of legislation concerning apartheid.

The second one, which is apparently also inevitable, is the unwarranted control taken by the hon. the Minister himself. I believe that the time has come for the hon. the Minister to explain to us why this can never be avoided. Something must be inherently wrong with the system which always has this inevitable effect.

When we look at the characteristics of this Bill we see that they are typical of the attitude of hon. members on the other side. I must admit that they are realistic enough to realize that not a single piece of legislation concerning the application of apartheid would be acceptable even to their own people unless they can introduce it by means of a smokescreen and secondly, unless they can at least include some positive aspect. For the latter purpose they must invariably rely on taking over a minor aspect of United Party policy and modifying it. It is very easy to detect the smokescreen in this particular Bill. Their smokescreen in regard to this Bill is that its introduction is necessary in order to promote administrative efficiency. They have stated as much. The hon. the Deputy Minister introduced it under the pretext that it would promote administrative efficiency. Other hon. members then spoke about the political implications.

The positive aspect of this Bill is also very easy to ascertain. The only positive aspect of this Bill is that it provides for the greater mobility of labour. We on this side of the House are always accused by hon. members on the other side of adopting a negative attitude. I believe the time has now come for them to thank us for the positive lead we have given them over the years. Can they deny the fact that it has always been this side of the House which has advocated greater mobility of the labour force in South Africa? They must thank us for this. I must remind hon. members that in view of the fact that this is only a modified and watered-down version of United Party policy which is being implemented, accepted and incorporated in this Bill, one must therefore also accept that the advantages will be limited. I think that we must ask, in the first place, exactly how free or mobile this movement of the labour force will actually be. A great deal, of course, will depend on the size and area of jurisdiction of these Bantu administration councils. For example—and this will be a great temptation—if a multitude of councils are created their effect will, of course, be very limited. Hon. members must remember that the only arbitrator in this regard will be the hon. the Minister. The other aspect in regard to which we must express concern, is the one concerning the Bantu Labour Act of 1964. That Act makes it quite clear that it is only itinerant labourers who can accompany their own employers. We know, and it is set out here, that the hon. the Minister can modify certain provisions. Modifications do not always mean that the scope is extended. It can also be restrictive.

Even if we give hon. members on the other side full credit for the positive aspects of this Bill—which, as I have said, is only a modified version of United Party policy—there is still no justification for two matters in particular. The one is the curtailment of the power of local authorities and the second is the unwarranted control that can be exercised by the hon. the Minister.

*If we note the provisions for the composition of these proposed boards—I think it is clause 3—we must express our strongest disapproval of the way in which the local authorities are being treated. It will not help saying that all local authorities agreed to it, which is virtually the impression the hon. member for Stilfontein tried to create. It may be true that they were consulted. But surely we must accept it as a fact that all the local authorities in South Africa do not agree with this specific legislation. In addition, I may say that if all local authorities are in agreement with it, it still does not mean that we on this side of this House must neglect our duty because there may perhaps be some city councils or municipal councils that do not know their duty, for example, in respect of their own permanent Bantu workers.

Which city councils are opposed to it?

Which city councils are opposed to it? What about the Johannesburg City Council? What about the Cape Town City Council?

The first shocking aspect of this legislation is that the powers and functions of local authorities in respect of the Bantu are being taken over completely. I maintain it is shocking, because it proves what lack of confidence there is in local authorities. [Interjections.] The implication of the legislation is that all local authorities are now being told that they are in fact incompetent to be trusted with the control and development of the Bantu who fall under their jurisdiction.

You should be ashamed of yourself for making that speech.

Wait, I am going further. I maintain that a shocking lack of confidence in local authorities is being revealed. One could still have understood this standpoint if the hon. the Minister’s point of departure had been that local authorities as such had nothing to do with the development and administration of the Bantu in their areas. But we know that this is not the case. This is not the hon. the Minister’s attitude.

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

No, I am very busy. It we look at clause 3 (1) (c), we see that provision is being made for the appointment of members of local authorities on these administration boards. Surely this is an admission that the local authorities have an interest in this? But the question which immediately occurs to me is why it is being said in addition that local authorities are incompetent to decide about their own internal affairs? The incompetence of the local authorities, according to the hon. the Minister, comes to the fore if one examines the way in which these members are to be appointed. They are not going to be elected or nominated members who are elected or nominated by the local city councils. No, the city councils must submit a list to the hon. the Minister. Who is best qualified to judge in regard to the members of a city council: the city council itself, whether it be Johannesburg, Durban, Cape Town or the smallest little village with a village management board, or the hon. the Minister? When I say that the hon. the Minister distrusts local authorities, I base it on the fact that he is not prepared to accept that they may nominate a representative who will then be appointed and that local authorities must therefore submit a list of 10 or 12 or 6 or 7 members—we have no idea how long this list must be—to him.

With respect, you do not know what you are talking about at all.

No, it is very clearly stated in this Bill. Clause 3 (1) (c) reads as follows—

The bodies referred to here are local authorities. Then it is stated that a list of names must be submitted, from which the hon. the Minister will select one. It is very clear that they do not want the local authorities to have too much say in this regard. In addition, it is very clear to me that there is apparently a certain impatience with the normal processes of democracy as far as local authorities are concerned. We accept that it may happen that a local board selects a person who attains such a position on account of his own popularity, but that does not mean that he will not be competent as well. Perhaps this is one of the prices which must be paid when the democratic process is applied.

†Sir, there are other very important reasons why we must protest against this Bill. We must also protest on behalf of the Bantu who are affected by the provisions of the Bill. In terms of clause 2 the Bantu affected by this Bill will be those Bantu permanently living outside the homelands, because the Bill provides for boards in areas outside the homelands. Everyone in South Africa realizes that when the Government is dealing with the Bantu outside the homelands, it is in fact dealing with a group of people it regards as the political misfits in South Africa. These are people who, in terms of the Government’s policy, will never have meaningful political rights. This matter was discussed the other day during the debate on another Bill. These are also people who we know will never have human rights such as the right of home ownership. They are also people who, in terms of the Government’s policy, will never have the privilege of electing councils which will be proper town councils.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. Whatever councils one envisages within the framework of the present policy of the Government, we know that they will not have the normal powers of municipal or town councils, because they will never be made responsible to the people, the residents of the areas which they serve. Without taking any other existing legislation into account, the establishment of proper town councils will be impossible once the provisions of this Bill are applied.

Clause 11 sets out the objects of the Administration boards. Among the general objects of the boards one finds that they will be responsible for the development of land in general. They will have the power to dispose of land and to donate it. They will be able to use land for any purpose they like. In other words, they are given the same full power that a proper town council would have. Why then must the existing local authorities—here I refer in particular to municipal councils and town councils—be deprived of this right to be involved in the development of the Bantu who live there permanently, in spite of what the hon. member for Stilfontein said a little while ago. The Bantu who live outside the reserves, especially those in the urban areas, have been referred to quite rightly, I believe, by members on this side of the House as the “have nots” among the Bantu. Whenever the White town councils are involved with the Bantu, one finds that the Bantu themselves are the people who benefit, because immediately every ratepayer plays his part. One then finds the situation where it is easier for the Bantu to exert some sort of influence to improve their own position. Under the proposed system, however, the residents will never be able to exert any influence upon the Bantu Administration boards because they will never be given the opportunity. The members of the Bantu boards will be responsible only to the person who has appointed them. That person is the hon. the Minister. It will be very easy to satisfy just one person, who in this case is the hon. the Minister. If we read further we see that, by some clauses, the Minister can dismiss a person without giving any reason. Why not give the reason when a person is dismissed; for example, for malpractices? In clause 4 (3) it is stated quite clearly—

It is quite clear that this clause is intended that there will only be people who will be “yes-men”. One cannot look at it from any other angle.

*It is alarming to see that there is only one uniform feature in this legislation, namely the feature that the control must be exercised from above. Everywhere one finds references to the take-over of buildings or the inclusion of certain areas which will perhaps affect one or two local authorities. It is always stated very clearly that it will take place “after consultation”. “After consultation” means only one thing, namely that the hon. the Minister must prove that he did in fact discuss the matter with them. Why does he not say, for example, “in consultation with”?

But we know what “after consultation” means.

“In consultation” surely means much more than “after consultation”.

It simply means “in agreement with each other”.

“In consultation” means that there is agreement. “After consultation” only means that a person has in fact listened to a case.

In the last few minutes at my disposal, I quickly want to return to the hon. member for Brakpan, who was so indignant that the United Party had allegedly made such a mistake by mouth of the hon. member for Johannesburg North in saying that it wanted to call the Bantu in as an arbitrator. This is what the hon. member said, but what do we continually hear across the floor of this House? What did we hear when the Bantu Homelands Act was introduced? It is continually being said that the Bantu accepted it.

The difference is that it is in their homeland.

Legislation is continually being submitted in this House in respect of which it is said that the Bantu have approved of it. Who is then the person who calls in the Bantu as an arbitrator?

They want to let the urban Bantu in the White area arbitrate.

No, in the normal implementation of its legislation, does the Government not consult with the Bantu? They do not have to consult and negotiate only with the Bantu in the reserves. What the hon. member has said there, now is, of course, that there have been no negotiations whatsoever with the Bantu, and that one only has to negotiate with the Bantu the moment they are in the reserves as such.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.