Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal for a moment or two with the amendment in clause 2, which has just been reported. In this regard I would like to ask the hon. the Minister specifically whether there are particular reasons for the reduction in the amount of 10 cusecs which was provided for in the Bill as it was read a Second Time and which has now been changed. I think we made it clear that we are not necessarily opposing this measure. This reduction is a very material one, however, because the Bill originally provided for 10 cusecs whereas now a waterworks for which a permit must first be obtained from the hon. the Minister will only be allowed 4 cusecs, that is less than half of what was originally provided for.

In regard to the Bill itself, I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether there is any provision made in this Bill for dealing with flood water. Is flood water provided for in clause 2? At the present time it is very difficult indeed when one constructs a waterworks to say whether it is going to rely on normal flow or on flood water. In the case of a dam, provided for in clause 2, it might well be that the impounded water will be flood water. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has taken this fact into consideration and whether provision for this is made in the particular clause.

Mr. Speaker, the reason for the reduction, namely from 10 cusecs to 4 cusecs, is that we feel that there must be a relationship between the abstraction rate, which is 10 cusecs, and the provisions regarding the damming up of a volume of water which could be 100 morgen feet.

Impounded?

Yes. We feel that if anybody is allowed to abstract water at the rate of 10 cusecs it can mean an irrigation rate of from 400 to 500 morgen which is not in relation to an irrigation rate of impounded water, which we intend to be round about 100 morgen.

The other question of the hon. member was whether we took flood water into account. The time when the impounding of water makes any material difference is not during flood periods, but during lean periods. During the lean period, before the start of the rainy season, it could be very important to prevent anybody from impounding too large a volume of water at one place of abstraction. It was therefore felt that we should limit the volume and keep into account what is happening in South Africa at the moment. We are not so much concerned about the major rivers. We are much more concerned about the smaller rivers. At the moment we have four or five cases where the volume of water abstracted from such small streams could upset the balance along the whole of the river. This can affect the supply of water used for irrigation purposes as well as for other people dependent upon that water. For this reason the provisions of this Bill are very strict. We feel that we should not change them, because we will not otherwise be able to act against people threatening the balance of conservation, especially in the Transvaal.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

This clause which deals with the transfer of assets, has a direct effect on persons who are members on a non-contributory basis, of an old fund, now being disestablished in terms of a previous clause and in which provision must be made to protect those persons’ rights and interests, particularly if they are non-contributory members of an old fund. Here I would like to refer to subsection (2) which deals with an endowment insurance policy which is being held by the Secretary in terms of the old regulations and is in the possession of the Secretary for the purposes of an old provident fund. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the new regulations which are provided for in clause 8 will to any great extent differ from the old regulations appertaining to the old provident fund. Sir, this is an important point in that it is specifically stated in this clause that where such an endowment insurance policy is held by the Secretary, although it is being held in terms of the old regulations of the old provident fund, the Secretary shall continue to hold such endowment insurance policy subject to the regulations. This would appear to apply to the regulations as defined in clause 1, which are the regulations passed in terms of the new Bill once it becomes an Act. It is important to know therefore, in the interests of these persons who are so situated, whether the new regulations to be promulgated in terms of clause 8 of this Bill, will to any great extent be different from those regulations appertaining to the old provident fund which is now being disestablished in terms of a previous clause. The regulations affecting persons in respect of whom such an endowment insurance policy is held are set out in paragraphs (m), (n) and (o) of clause 8. It is important to ascertain whether, where an endowment insurance policy is so held, this particular type of member is affected by dividends that are due through that endowment insurance policy.

I shall deal with the question of the transfer of funds more fully in a moment. I just want to say briefly that in outline the regulations will be the same as those we have at present, and the protection at present given to the rights of persons, will be retained. In regard to the question of endowment assurance policies in the possession of the Secretary prior to the coming into operation of this Act, they, too, will be retained for the purposes of the new fund; I can give the hon. member this assurance at once.

†In connection with the transferability of assets from the two old funds to the new fund, I want to make it quite clear that these are provident funds and not pension funds as such. A provident fund as such is not subject to periodic valuation. A separate account is kept in the case of each individual member. On transfer the amount standing to such a member’s credit is merely transferred to the new fund.

I want to say for the information of hon. members that the balance sheet of the University Institutions Provident Fund shows total assets to the amount of R18,476,000 as at the 31st March, 1970, and in the case of the Technical Colleges Provident Fund the assets amount to R5,375,000, in round figures. The assets of these two funds shall, with effect from a fixed date, be transferred to the new fund. I think that is the answer to the hon. member’s question.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

The hon. the Minister during the course of the second reading debate gave further information and elucidated the position of the noncontributory member and the position of a person who is employed by the council of an associated institution in a temporary capacity or on a contract for a fixed period. The paragraph dealing with the position of that person states clearly that he shall continue to be a non-contributory member of the new fund once this new fund is established. Subclause (4) also refers to the position of a person who was a non-contributory member and says that he shall with effect from a fixed date be released from all obligations towards and relinquish all rights and privilege in respect of the old provident fund of which he was a member or out of which, in terms of the old regulations, he was entitled to a benefit on the basis of non-contributing participation. Here I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied in the case of these persons who were non-contributing members of an old fund, whether it is the Technical Colleges Provident Fund or the University Institutions Provident Fund, that in the event of their being required to become contributing members in terms of subclause (3), their entitlement to additional benefits that they have earned while they have been non-contributing members is fully provided for in terms of the legislation that is before us. In other words, Sir, we would like clarity in regard to the transferability of the benefits of persons who were non-contributing members of an old fund if they should become contributing members in terms of subsection (1) of this clause, because subclause (1) specifically states that persons are contributing members unless they have an additional benefit payable to them in terms of clause 5 (2) that we have already dealt with, whereby these additional benefits due to them would be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. My main point here is the position of a non-contributing member who is then required in terms of the other clauses and in terms of a subsection of this clause to become a contributing member of the fund, to ensure that there is transferability of the benefits earned by him as a non-contributing member of the old fund.

Sir, I understand the problem which the hon. member put there, and I shall go into it. It was the exceptional case which he put there; I do not know whether it is possible in practice. The whole object of this clause briefly boils down to this, that members of the old fund who were contributors to an old fund on the day before the coming into operation of the new Act, will be obliged in terms of this clause to become members of the new fund, with this exception: unless they were entitled on that date to the payment of a benefit or an additional benefit; in that case they will not be obliged to become members of the new fund. However, members who were not compulsory contributors to the old provident fund on the fixed date, do not become contributing members of the new fund, even though on the fixed date an amount from an old fund is available which may provide them with annual dividends. A person who is in the service of an associated institution in a temporary capacity or on contract may, provided he has not attained the pensionable age, at the request of the board of such an institution and with the approval of the Secretary for Social Welfare and Pensions in terms of subclause (3) in fact become a member of the new fund. I think this is the reply to the question which the hon. member really had in mind. Subsection (4) divests members of the old provident fund, or non-contributing members who were entitled to benefits in that fund, of all their rights and obligations in respect of that fund when they become members of the new fund. In other words, I think subsection (3) answers the hon. member’s question, if I understood him correctly.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

In order to eliminate discussion, I should just like to explain that this amendment is necessary in order to prevent a certain group of persons of whom a few are still alive, but who will disappear in due course as a result of the new Act, from being excluded. This group of persons became members of the old provident fund before 1950 and consequently qualified at the termination of their services for the payment of an additional benefit and although they accepted a full benefit from the fund concerned at the age of 60, continue to serve and thus still await the payment of an additional benefit. As the clause stands at present, my problem is that they do not satisfy the definition of either a member or the other definition of a non-contributing member, and because the additional benefit is payable by discretion only at final retirement from the service, they have neither obtained any established rights in regard to it which may be protected by the Interpretation Act. Thus the amendment is being proposed in order to protect their rights.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 13:

Yesterday we argued about the 90 days or the 180 days in this specific regard. I want to explain the position at once. As the clause reads at present, the position in practice is that after a person has received official notice from the responsible institution concerned that he must exercise the right as to whether he wants to remain with the old fund or wants to be transferred to the new fund, he has 90 days from then in which to decide. A strong case can be made out by saying that if a person has not decided within 90 days, he will not decide in 180 days either. In practice this means—it does not mean that the matter can pass unnoticed without his being aware of it—that it is 90 days from the date on which he is specifically notified that he may choose. But in spite of that, I must add that we have discretion as well, and by way of concession the Secretary may allow the persons to exercise their option after the date concerned in case there are real reasons why such a person did not exercise the option, for example a professor who was studying overseas for six months or a year and did not know about this specific provision. The notification could have remained in the post-box and it may be proved that he did not receive it. In that case the Secretary may make further concessions in special circumstances. But I have considered the matter and in the light of the representations of the hon. member, I have decided to move an amendment in order to extend the 90 days to 120 days, which I think will in fact be accommodating towards him and which must be accepted in this good spirit. I therefore move—

From this side of the House we welcome this amendment as we believe it will be in the interest of these persons to give them a further opportunity to make an important decision where they have to elect to become a member of a pension fund.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The principal change in this clause is a change from the previous position whereby the qualifications and period of office of members of the Immigration Selection Board were laid down in the Gazette. The position sought to be brought in is that they will be appointed by the State President as before, but that he may lay down, presumably in the letter of appointment, the period of office in respect of each individual which he chooses. Now it is common for boards of this kind to have their conditions of service and tenure of office laid down in the regulations so that everyone knows where he stands. I wonder whether the Minister could elaborate a little on why it is necessary to bring in this change.

Hon. members will notice that only those conditions relating to pecuniary matters such as remuneration, allowances, etc., are in future to be determined by the Minister of Immigration in consultation with the Minister of Finance, and not the period of service which is contained in the appointment by the State President. These matters come up for review from time to time in conjunction with similar conditions of service applicable to members of statutory boards constituted under other laws, which are almost without exception dealt with in terms similar to the amendment proposed in this Bill. I want to quote a few examples to the hon. member of comparable boards. First of all there is the Industrial Tribunal under Act 28 of 1956. According to section 17 (5) of this Act. the members of this board are dealt with in exactly the same way as we propose to do in this Bill now. Then there is the Wage Board under Act 48 of 1953, the National Housing Commission under Act 4 of 1966, the Group Areas Board under Act 36 of 1966, the Community Development Board under Act 3 of 1966, and the Rent Board under Act 43 of 1950.

The amendment, therefore, will make for uniformity in dealing with the conditions of service of members of statutory boards generally and eliminate any possible discrimination against members of the Immigration Selection Board, who can only start enjoying any revised benefits after the promulgation of amended regulations which may take a considerable time after their counterparts on other statutory boards have already started enjoying theirs. The main problem boils down to this. If for example a change is announced in salaries of Government officials as such and it is approved by the Minister of Finance, then all members of boards automatically go on to the new scale, but in the case of the Immigration Selection Board we have to go through the full procedure of first of all gazetting the new salaries and the new circumstances, which is really not necessary. We find it administratively not necessary. That is the only reason and there is nothing dubious about the whole situation.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

The amendment I should like to deal with here is the one in the new subsection (1), which relates to the prescribed form in respect of a permit to enter the Union for purposes of permanent residence. Previously the form which had to be completed was set out in a regulation and all those who wished to make this application and all others such as attorneys whose job it is to advise people in this regard, knew simply by a perusal of the Gazette what had to be collected by way of information and what had to be gone into to complete the application. Now this is to be made available by the Secretary presumably on application. The fact that what is in the form is not known, prima facie appears to be a drawback and, secondly, one would like to know whether there will be a variety of forms for various categories of would be immigrants or applicants, or is there merely to be one form? And if that is the case, why cannot it be dealt with in the regulations as before?

This is once again a matter of administrative efficiency. From the nature of the case, one wants to change the form from time to time in order to obtain additional information. Circumstances in the world are changing all the time. At other times one wants to add an additional question to the existing form because one wants to obtain further information from the person. In terms of the present position, the entire form has to be published in the regulations every time it is changed, and this is a long procedure. I want to assure the hon. member at once that the idea is not to have different forms for different people. The form exists and, from the nature of the case, the existing form will be accepted. But if we should find, as a result of administrative circumstances, that we want further or additional information, we do not want to have to come back and promulgate a special regulation in which it is indicated what the new form will look like. This is merely a matter of our having the power to add an additional question to the form. The form will then be printed.

From the nature of the case, it will not be possible to include this in a certain form overnight. We will have to announce in advance that an additional question will be added, and the additional question will then appear in the new supply which is going to be printed. Only then will we collect the additional information which will enable us to come to a decision in regard to these cases. This is again being done to promote administrative efficiency. There is nothing sinister about this matter. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the same form will be used for all persons. No exceptions will be made.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, this clause amends section 1 of the principal Act, and deals with certain definitions. This clause also contains the main principle of the Bill, which is to extend the provisions of the National Welfare Act to the Territory of South-West Africa. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not agree that only one amendment to the definition is necessary. It would appear that the only amendment required is to amend the definition of “Republic”. In this clause, which is now before us, we find the definitions of both “Republic” and “the territory”. The definition of “Republic” reads as follows: “ ‘Republic’ includes the territory.” Then there is an additional definition which reads as follows: “ ‘The territory’ means the territory of South-West Africa.” I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not consider the second definition irrelevant. One definition merely defining the Republic and stating that the territory of South-West Africa is included in that definition, would appear to be sufficient for the purposes of extending the provisions of the Act to the territory of South-West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the law advisers have their own way of stating things. I am not a lawyer and sometimes I also find it difficult to understand why a certain phrasing has been used. In this case, however, they have assured me that this is the way in which this provision must be put. I submit to their superior knowledge in this regard. Therefore, I accept it like this and I want to ask the hon. member to do the same.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, the first part of this clause bring about an amendment which concerns the residential qualifications whereby a person may qualify for an old-age pension. I would like to refer to the principal Act, particularly in relation to the portions of this clause which state that certain subsections are to be deleted in the principal Act. Here we seek further clarity in regard to the reasons for the amendment as it now stands. If we look at the principal Act, we will see that section 7 (1) (b) (iii) states:

If such a person was returned to South Africa he could qualify for a pension in terms of residential qualifications. However, there are other sections in the principal Act which are to be deleted which refer to the question of a person who is a White person who has entered the Republic from any territory in Africa determined by the Minister. This would appear to have a considerable effect on the means test as it now exists. In terms of this amendment which is before us namely the new subparagraph (iii) which reads:

It appears to be a departure from the existing position whereby this was restricted to White persons entering the Republic from any other territory in Africa as has been determined by the Minister. In the past we have found that the hon. the Minister has granted these people permission in terms of the residential qualifications, those who have come from Kenya, the Congo and Tanzania. However, the principal Act merely states that this concession to the people is merely of a temporary nature, because subsection (6) of the principal Act which reads:

Is now being deleted. In terms of the clause which is before us, paragraph (b) of the clause, subsections (2) and (3) are deleted and according to paragraph (b), subsection (6) is deleted. It would appear that this now becomes a permanent part of our legislation that persons who have entered the Republic from any other country or any other territory and not specifically confined to the African continent could be exempted from the residential qualifications as they exist. Subsection (6) of the principal Act, whereby the Minister may with effect from a date fixed by the State President by proclamation end the concession which was previously granted in terms of the other two subsections, is now deleted. The other portion of this clause which deals with the question of the continuation of the payment of the pension after a period of six months, is also being amended in that the proviso which reads that a person who has resided in the Republic or South-West, “for not less than 15 out of the 20 years immediately preceding the date of his last departure from the Republic …” is also being deleted.

We welcome that provision, because we realize that there have been cases of persons who, due to circumstances beyond their control, have found that these circumstances have necessitated them to leave the Republic and that they are unable to continue to receive a pension after a period of six months should they not have been in the Republic for 15 out of the past 20 years. Therefore, that deletion is welcomed by this side of the House, but what we seek at this stage is clarity in regard to this clause. We seek clarity in regard to this clause, particularly as it affects the deletion of the subsections of the principal Act, which I have already referred to and which have previously been enforced. These subsections have limited the countries from which these people have come to the countries or territories on the African continent. It now appears that in terms of this legislation this is now being widened to include any other country or any other territory. We will be grateful if the hon. the Minister can give us an indication whether this in fact will be the practical implication of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite correct. This extends my responsibility, as well as the possibility, to other countries outside Africa. I need not deal with it fully. I can merely tell him that it takes into account our immigrants who come to South Africa from other parts of the world. Sometimes one finds that circumstances are such that these people are really in need and require financial help, and that there is no other method of helping them. Then they cannot meet this requirement as it stands at present. It affords the Minister some flexibility so as to enable him to assist such people in co-operation with the Minister of Finance. This is the idea behind it and the concession we are trying to make in terms of this Bill.

It applies in other cases as well. I shall take South-West Africa as an example to which we are making this specifically applicable. It often happens, for example, that the German-speaking people in South-West Africa send their parents back to Germany for a long period, and that these people return to South Africa after approximately one year. In that case there is an interruption in the period, and in terms of the present legislation, we shall not be able to give them any pension. The present Ordinance in South-West Africa does not contain this strict provision. In order that these people will not be penalized under the new dispensation, we are making this concession so as to meet their case.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second-Reading debate on this Bill we discussed mainly this clause which brings about an alteration to the definition clause in the principal Act. We were particularly concerned about the position as far as the definition of a war veteran is concerned, whereby the various racial groups were deleted. However, the new amendment to the definition of a war veteran made a stipulation that those persons who were not entitled to be termed a “war veteran” in terms of the legislation in force immediately prior to the enactment of this Bill, will continue not to be so classified as war veterans. In effect, as a result a situation arose whereby the Bantu race would be the only race that would be excluded in terms of this definition, as was the case in the previous Act. The hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second-Reading debate indicated that he would be prepared to give consideration to the plea that we made on this side of the House for a reconsideration of the definition of a war veteran with the aim of assisting those persons of the Bantu race who are specifically excluded in terms of the definition which is now before us. Before taking this matter any further, we would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give an indication at this stage whether he has had an opportunity to give further consideration to the matter, as he said he would, with his colleague in the Cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say at once that I have discussed the matter with the two colleagues concerned. There are quite a number of problems which we shall have to iron out more thoroughly than is the case at present.

I know that the hon. member for North Rand also has something to add in this regard. For that reason I just want to tell the hon. member that at the Third Reading—i.e. on Monday—I shall definitely have more particulars at my disposal, but I just want to add at once that the principle involved here, cannot be corrected in this Bill. It will have to be corrected under the Department of Bantu Administration, under which all Bantu pensions fall. This question will therefore have to be raised on that Vote during the general Budget debate with a view to legislation being passed in that regard. During the Third-Reading debate I shall be glad to furnish more particulars in regard to the matter. I shall also reply to the hon. member for North Rand when he has finished speaking.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister is quite clear about what our attitude is in this regard. Therefore I do not wish to thrash out this matter any further. However, I just want to take this opportunity to bring two points to his attention in order to help him and to help us.

In his reply yesterday the hon. the Minister mentioned the large numbers of Bantu who served in the war and who would therefore qualify under this new definition of a “war veteran” if it were adopted.

Who might qualify.

Yes. What the hon. the Minister said, is quite true. As far as I know approximately 78,000 Bantu served in the Second World War. Now, if we assume that there may be another 70,000 of them who will qualify as war veterans, it still does not follow that there are 70,000 of them who will receive war veterans’ pensions. Just as it is in the case of the Whites, there are many who qualify under the definition of “war veteran”, but all White war veterans do not draw pensions. Such a war veteran has to comply with certain requirements in order that he may qualify for that pension. Only a very small number of those persons who qualify as war veterans, can, in fact, also qualify for war veterans’ pensions. That is the first point I want to put to the hon. the Minister. Therefore, it does not follow that all 70,000 Bantu are entitled to war veterans’ pensions. Just as in the case of the Whites, they must also comply with the qualifications that have been laid down.

In other words, the means test?

Yes, the means test and other tests which are being applied to the Whites. A very small number of them qualify for this pension.

But there is also a second point which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Yesterday he said that only those persons who were in the fighting line, would qualify for this war veterans’ pension. I hope I have not misunderstood him. In this case I just want to point out that as far as Whites, Coloureds, Chinese and Indians are concerned, everybody who performed any service anywhere qualifies for the definition of “war veteran”. But, once again, it does not follow that they are entitled to a war veteran’s pension. The point I want to make in this regard, is that although many of these Bantu served in con-combatant units, they nevertheless have to qualify as war veterans, just as it is in the case of the Whites.

Mr. Chairman, on reading sub-paragraph (d) of clause 1, before one comes to the words proposed to be added at the end, one sees that it follows a pattern which has been adopted in other legislation of this House when such legislation has been extended to South-West Africa, namely to give it the façade of not being related to population groupings. In the case of this Bill for instance, the definition of a “war veteran” is proposed to be amended by the deletion of the words “White person, Coloured person, Chinese or Indian” and if this legislation is adopted, “war veteran” will mean any person who served in the Armed Forces under certain circumstances. However, that façade is destroyed by the proposed addition of certain words at the end of this clause, which do not refer to colour, but to persons who qualified before the passing of a certain Act. We have appealed from this side of the House over and over again to the hon. the Minister and his predecessors to see that justice is done as regards the people in South-West Africa whom the hon. the Minister, in terms of this clause, now intends to preclude from receiving war veterans pensions. If the last words “but does not include …” etc., are deleted from this clause, there will be justice done to all persons of all races of South-West Africa who served in the Armed Forces in the different circumstances which are related in this clause.

There can only be two reasons for adding the words which the hon. the Minister proposes to add in this clause. This clause provides that Bantu persons in South-West Africa will be excluded from the provisions in this Bill. The first reason is the number of persons who might qualify. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that that is not a consideration. It was never a consideration in dealing with war veterans’ pensions for the First World War, Second World War and Oudstryder pensions. Numbers were not the consideration, but the question of service to the country. The second reason which might motivate the Government in feeling that Bantu should not receive war veterans’ pensions is the nature of their service during the war, namely as non-combatant troops. To suggest that the Bantu being non-combatant troops as were the Coloureds were not subjected to all the dangers of war would be a misconception of what took place. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the Bantu who were concerned with the supply lines and on supply routes were probably subjected to more aggravated forms of aerial bombardment and machine gunning than were some of the armed troops. When one also thinks of the extent to which they entered war zones with supplies one realizes that they were subjected not only to aerial bombardment and machine gunning, but also to the normal gun fire and mortar bombing which take place in those areas. In these circumstances I do not believe that there should be an exclusion in regard to Bantu in South-West Africa. I also hope that in due course the hon. the Minister will extend these war veterans’ pensions to Bantu in South Africa who served their country.

We have just completed in this chamber a Joint Sitting to give to the Bantu people of South Africa, or to provide the machinery, to give them all the trappings of nationhood, like a flag, a national anthem and self-government. We want to give them all those things which are regarded as being so important. The one thing we are not giving to Bantu ex-servicemen is bringing them into the orbit of the War Veterans’ Pension Act and giving them the recognition which we are prepared to give to any other person of every other colour who have served our country in the past during war time. It seems a little inconsistent, to say the least, that this attitude should continue. I would have welcomed it if the hon. the Minister had seen fit not to include this “but” at the end of this clause. Then at least a start would have been made in regard to those persons who qualify in South-West Africa and I hope that the hon. the Minister will later come with legislation to deal with these people who live in South Africa. I do not know where the “haakplek”, if I may use this expression, is in this regard. I am sure the hon. the Minister concedes that it is the just claim of these people to get their just deserts as far as pensions are concerned. I am sure the hon. the Minister who deals with social welfare realizes that it is only just that they should be included. Somewhere in the workings of the Government or his colleagues there is a “haakplek”. Whether it is in connection with finance or with the Department of Bantu Administration I do not know. But I do hope that the hon. Minister, who has indicated his willingness to view this matter with sympathy, will not only view it with sympathy but will use his influence within the Cabinet and the Government to see that this position is rectified. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that over the years since the conclusion of hostilities this responsibility has been carried to a great extent by funds which have been made available by the general public. I want to say here that we appreciate the ready access which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has given to representatives of the South African Legion and others who try on behalf of the National War Fund to help these Bantu ex-servicemen. That has been done in certain parts of the Republic; it has been done in Lesotho at the request of the Government of Lesotho, and I do believe that we in South Africa now have the opportunity of extending this first of all to the Bantu in South-West Africa and then seeing that that continues and that it is extended, as the hon. the Minister said he will consider doing. I know he has not committed himself beyond undertaking to give it consideration, but I know that if he sets his mind to achieve something he can do it, and I hope that we will have legislation during this Session to see that this long-standing discrimination against the Bantu ex-servicemen is removed from the legislation of this country. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give that matter his full support.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that he is considering this matter further, and this gives us an opportunity to make certain other suggestions to him to assist him in coming to a decision. Sir, the one reason why we are compelled to raise this matter under this legislation is that this hon. Minister is responsible for the administration of the War Veterans’ Pension Act and, of course, for the definition of “war veteran” which is now being amended in terms of this clause. We fully realize and appreciate that in terms of other clauses and other provisions of the principal Act, the hon. the Minister delegates this portion dealing with the Bantu to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, but ultimately it is this Minister who will have to bring forward amending legislation so as to facilitate the payment of a war veterans’ pension to the Bantu as well.

Sir, the hon. the Minister mentioned quite a number of figures this afternoon as well as yesterday during the Second Reading debate, but I want to say that some of his figures are not really relevant. Here I have in mind the figures which the Minister mentioned concerning those Bantu who are receiving a military pension for a disablement received while on service. With respect, Sir, we are not dealing here at all with that type of pension; that is not a social pension. We are dealing here with a pension in terms of the War Veterans’ Pension Act which is a social pension, so I submit that it is not relevant at all to quote figures relating to Bantu persons receiving disablement pensions for war service. The point has also been made from this side of the House that although these Bantu did not bear arms, they certainly saw action and were open to grave danger, and indeed the roll of honour displayed in the Gallery Hall of this House records the names of those Bantu who paid the supreme penalty. The figures given by the Minister in respect of those persons receiving military disablement pensions indicate that these persons suffered war injuries and were wounded in action. I would like to illustrate, Sir, what the exclusion of this particular group means to those who are already receiving old-age pensions or ex gratia allowances in terms of existing legislation. Because the Bantu is excluded from the definition of “war veteran”, a Bantu war veteran today is receiving the same amount that a Bantu old-age pensioner receives, with a maximum of R5 per month. A White war veteran pensioner receives R43 per month. There is a tremendous difference therefore between the amounts paid to these two groups of war veterans, a difference based merely on the fact that the one is a white war veteran and the other a Bantu war veteran. The Bantu war veteran is not included in the definition of “war veteran”; he receives an old-age pension, if he is over the age of 65, or he can receive an ex gratia allowance which also only amounts to R5 per month. In the case of those persons who are already receiving an old-age pension therefore the cost to the State will not be so great, because I presume that the Government will adopt the same attitude that they have adopted in the past, where a ratio of four to one has applied. This will mean that if the Whites receive an extra R8 per month, and the Coloured and Indian R4 per month, the Bantu war veteran will possibly receive an extra R2 per month. It would therefore merely mean the payment of an additional R2 per month to those Bantu who are war veterans but who are receiving old-age pensions or ex gratia allowances. There are only 212 persons receiving those ex gratia allowances. I submit therefore that it is not such a large amount of expenditure that would be involved should this definition not be proceeded with and should the definition be allowed to stand for all racial groups, including the Bantu. It will bring into account these people, many of whom have had years of service during the war, and if we look at the application of the means test we realize that there is a strict means test applicable for all racial groups and particularly amongst the Bantu. So only those who are really in need would qualify for a Bantu war veterans’ pension if one takes into account the means test that exists. We know that in terms of the regulations, which are not before us now but which are germane to this discussion, if a person has served for one month in so far as war service is concerned he can qualify for a war veterans’ pension. Only recently I dealt with a case where a White war veteran had served only for five weeks and was discharged and he applied for a war veterans’ pension and received R43 a month, although he had only served for a period of five weeks. So one can see that there is a wide difference in regard to the position of these people and we believe that it is important, to be consistent with the other legislation as the hon. member for Green Point has suggested, that we should apply it to all racial groups and see that justice is done to this one group, which at the moment is excluded in terms of this clause.

The hon. member will appreciate that at this stage I cannot consent to this amendment. The reason is very obvious, namely that, unlike hon. members may be thinking at the moment, if I were to withdraw this amendment as it stands here at present, it would not mean that only the Bantu of South-West Africa would qualify, but also that all Bantu in the Republic of South Africa would qualify, and then I would, in regard to this matter, already have conceded the principle on which the Government has up to this stage adopted a different attitude. But this does not only apply to this Government; that is my problem. I am now going to quote from the Hansard of 1941, and the speaker on this specific matter was Minister Jan Hofmeyr, the then Minister of Finance. That was during the war years, while the war was still in progress. At that time he said—

That was the standpoint in 1941 as stated by Minister Hofmeyr. Now, I do not wish to refer myself to that situation, for I know circumstances may have changed completely. But I just want to tell hon. members not to create the impression that this Government is now adopting such a callous attitude. Their own Government during the war adopted the same attitude, for very practical reasons. Now I want to make the matter very clear at once.

In the first place, one has administrative problems. I have already given the undertaking that I shall investigate the matter further and illustrate the matter further at the Third Reading, but there are administrative problems. Firstly, according to the numbers I have here a total of 160,017 Bantu served in the two World Wars. Whether this is a duplication, I do not know. Whether some of them who served in the First World War also served in the Second World War—which would, therefore, bring down the total—I do not know at all at the moment, but the total is 160,000. How many of them have died and how many are still alive, I do not know either. At this stage these facts are still unknown. Consequently hon. members cannot take it amiss of me if I say that at this stage I cannot commit myself to adopting a brand-new attitude before I know what the consequences of that attitude will be. But I want to add that even if all these Bantu to whom we are referring now, were already receiving old-age pensions, a mere change from the old-age pension to the war veterans’ pension would, if we were to adhere to the 4:2:1 basis cost the State an additional amount of R3,850,000. I do not wish to go into all the aspects now, for I do not think this is the time to do so, but I should just like to make it clear to hon. members that this is not a decision which this Government is now too callous to take, but that it is an old decision of their Government which has specifically been brought to our notice and which has not been amended up to date.

I want to quote one more passage before proceeding to the next point. I am now going to quote from the so-called Van Eck Report of 1944. The full name of the report reads as follows: “Report of the Social Security Committee on Report No. 2 of the Social and Economic Planning Council, entitled ‘Social Security, Social Services and the National Income’.” In that report we find the following—

The report then furnishes a table, and after that the following is specifically said in respect of the Bantu—

These are the provisions that were made at that time. What is the position today in respect of this specific situation? At present the Department of Social Welfare is paying 1,414 Bantu ex-soldiers or their dependants an amount of R175,000 per year, at a maximum of R168 per year, and an average of R123 per year per case as a war pension in respect of wounds, injuries and inability to work owing to injuries sustained in the Second World War.

That is not a social pension.

I am not saying that it is a social pension. I just want to point this out to the hon. member. I mentioned the argument merely to prove that we have not totally forgotten or ignored the Bantu. Bantu who sustained injuries as a result of which they are handicapped to such an extent that they cannot perform normal work, are in fact being accommodated in this way. In addition, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development is at present paying approximately R12,000 per year to 212 ex-soldiers. These are ex gratia payments and not war veterans’ pensions. This is being done in terms of those arrangements which were adopted in 1941 and 1944, and which are still in force today. These are the arrangements to which I referred in the Van Eck report. In other words, on the basis of a means test the Department of Bantu Administration is paying ex gratia payments to all Bantu ex-soldiers who can prove that owing to circumstances their position is such that they are really struggling to make a living. They have therefore not been forgotten. However, to hon. members the point at issue is apparently the principle that all Bantu war veterans of the two world wars who qualify in terms of a certain means test, should receive pensions. That principle is so wide in scope that I cannot give a decision on it now.

Mr. Chairman I want to thank the hon. the Minister for what he has said. However according to the figures he has just mentioned regarding the number of Bantu who served in the wars and who are receiving pensions to suggest that only 212 of all those thousands are deserving of assistance shows that the surface has only been scratched when it comes to the investigation of this matter. The percentage should be far higher and obviously is far higher. I do not want to pursue the matter with the hon. the Minister now. I just want to say that if he were consistent and followed every decision of the United Party in the past we would have little to disagree about. In giving us the background the hon. the Minister mentioned the situation as it was in 1941. Much has happened since 1941. The problems and the difficulties which have to be faced by these people are very different from what they were in those days. The country is very different and the philosophy of this Government is very different to what it was then regarding the development of these people. I can only leave the matter at that and hope that the hon. the Minister will use his influence in the right quarters to see that justice is done. We do not want to suggest in an irresponsible way that the sluice gates should be opened before we know what the actual demands will be but I think the time has arrived when we can assess carefully what this will entail for the country. This is a matter which the country can afford to investigate when it comes to granting relief to those Bantu who served in the armed forces.

In conclusion I want to mention two matters only. My first statement is that as far back as 1941 the United Party had to deal with the Bantu war veterans who served in the 1914-1918 War. That was years after the event. In spite of the 20 years that had elapsed the decision was still not to grant such pensions.

That goes to show how wrong the then Government was.

No I do not want to say anything about it. I just want to say that the circumstances which are valid now in respect of the Second World War were valid in 1941 in respect of First World War. At that stage the United Party did not approve it either, in spite of those circumstances.

In the second place, I want to say that, although the hon. member said that circumstances had changed, our Party’s attitude in that respect is very clear in regard to our situation as a whole. That is why I say that they are knocking on the wrong door. In terms of the policy of this Government, the Minister to whom one should apply for assistance, is the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

I move the following amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central, who was the last speaker yesterday evening, is unfortunately unable to be present here this afternoon as a result of the fact that he had to leave for Kimberley owing to unavoidable circumstances. However, I may mention that he apologized to me for not being here. I found that particularly courteous. I may say, however, that when I referred to his speech which he made in this House yesterday afternoon, I am very sorry to say that I found it less courteous than his conduct when he told me that he was leaving.

What did we find? We found that that hon. member, as well as other hon. members on the opposite side of the House who participated in this debate, tried to cast this jewel of a Bill, If I may call it that, under suspicion among local authorities in South Africa. This motive was present in the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Central from beginning to end. What did they say? I have the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Central here with me, and I am now going to quote from it.

The hon. member, as well as other hon. members on that side of the House, implied that this Government is derogating from the autonomy and the powers of local authorities in South Africa. The hon. member for Durban Central went even further and he implied that the Government distrusted local authorities in South Africa. Just for the record, I want to quote briefly from the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Central. In the first instance he said this, and I quote—

That is not all the hon. member for Durban Central said. The hon. the Deputy Minister made an interjection arising out of what I am now going to read out to hon. members. The hon. the Deputy Minister said it was shocking, and I cannot but express my disappointment to the hon. member for Durban Central in his absence, for during the short while he has been in this House, I have regarded him as a reasonably responsible member, even if he is a United Party member. I want to read out to hon. members what he said. He said that the first shocking aspect of this legislation was that the powers and functions of local authorities in respect of the Bantu are being taken over completely by the Government. He went on to say—

That is what he said, that they are in fact incompetent. Let me make this very clear. This side of the House has every confidence in local authorities and the commendable work which has been done by them over the years in South Africa. After all, hon. members on that side know as well as I do that it is laid down in legislation that local authorities are solely the agents, as the hon. member for Stilfontein said, when it comes to the implementation of the policy of the Government in regard to Bantu administration. I should like to indicate this very clearly. I want to refer hon. members on that side to the Constitution Act of the Republic of South Africa, section 111, which makes this aspect very clear. I quote—

But I should like to go further and quote to hon. members from a speech made by our former Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd, on the occasion of the Congress of the Institute of Administrators of non-White Affairs in Bloemfontein in 1956. I want to quote what the late Dr. Verwoerd said in respect of this matter, so that there can be no misunderstanding as to what the policy of this side of the House is (translation)—

I think that at that stage he was referring specifically to the United Party—

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I should like to quote at some considerable length, because I want to make the standpoint of this side of the House very clear. I am quoting further—

I think it is now very clear to hon. members what the standpoint of the Government is. I really think it is far-fetched of an hon. member such as the hon. member for Durban Central to have made this statement in his speech yesterday evening, i.e. that the Government, mistrusts local authorities in South Africa. I shall during the course of my speech return to those commendable things which have been done by local authorities in South Africa. But allow me at this stage just to say that it is with the greatest appreciation that this side of the House and the Government takes cognizance of the good work which has over the years been done by local authorities in South Africa.

This National Party Government not only has a duty and a calling to fulfil towards the Bantu in South Africa, but it most certainly also has a duty and a calling to fulfil towards the Whites in South Africa. I want to give the assurance that this responsible Government will tackle this responsibility with the greatest conscientiousness and dedication, as it has done in years gone by and as it will also do in the years which lie ahead, in spite of the standpoint of such a rotten Opposition. The National Party Government has been governing South Africa for many years, for more than two decades now.

Too long.

The hon. member is saying: “Too long”. I want to give him the assurance that the National Party is going to govern South Africa for many years to come still. I am afraid that that hon. member will no longer be in this House then. At various elections in the past this National Party Government has received a mandate from the people of South Africa to continue to develop the Bantu policy and the chosen course it has been following for many years. Members on that side of the House can moan and wail, they can do exactly what they like, but this National Party Government will, as long as it receives the mandate from the people of South Africa, continue to implement its Bantu policy in South Africa. I also want to tell hon. members on that side of the House that this side of the House is governing South Africa. They will simply have to accept the fact that this side of the House is governing South Africa and that this side of the House will continue to govern South Africa for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, if we consider this Bill and its contents, we see that it holds a promise. I see in it the promise to make better provision. And to make better provision is to my mind an admission that the provision which was made in the past, was not perfect. People and a government aware of such a fact, and admitting it, must also be prepared to make continual adjustments. This view of legislation becomes all the more a fact which must be faced up to when we are dealing with this specific situation in which the legislature of South Africa finds itself, and in the times in which we are living, because in South Africa there is an assembly of peoples and an arrangement of inter-ethnic relationships between the various population groups which is the only one of its kind in the world. It is the duty and the responsibility of a responsible government, such as this National Party Government, to be continually making adjustments, as it has in fact done with this Bill which is now under discussion.

As a result of representations by industrialists and employers for larger controlled areas in which labour can move freely, for example from one urban area to another, consideration has been given to means by which to implement this. In order not to separate the control of labour and housing in a larger controlled area, there was, in my humble opinion, one or two possibilities which could be adopted. In the first instance the Government could have decided to establish local authorities side by side in an area, or alternatively, to establish one central body which would undertake the control of all aspects of Bantu administration. The disadvantages of the co-operation between local authorities would have been in more than one respect. Co-operation would not necessarily have been assured. That is obvious. It would be possible to give preference to local interests, and disputes and competition could arise between local authorities, which could make co-operation difficult. Another great disadvantage, in my humble opinion, for the Government would be that it would still have had to liaise with various bodies, as opposed to the one control body. A single controlling body eliminates all these disadvantages and assures, in particular, uniformity in respect of the application of policy, which is of great benefit, specially to the Bantu in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister did not go to work in a haphazard way in drafting this Bill. I can only join with others this afternoon in congratulating him personally on the great circumspectness with which he tackled this great and enormous task. In particular I should like to thank him for his untiring zeal in consulting interested bodies in drafting of this Bill. We are aware that work on this Bill has been in progress for the past two years. We are aware that many other bodies have been consulted. But what I am particularly grateful for is the fact that the United Municipal Executive, as well as the Institute of non-White Administrators, were from time to time consulted in this specific case. If one adopts a completely objective attitude to this Bill, if one stands on the “side lines”, if I may put it like that, to whom must I pay heed? Must I pay heed to an Opposition such as this which is in fact out of contact with reality as far as dealing with Bantu Affairs in South Africa is concerned? Or must I, if I want to be objective, pay heed to the Directors of Bantu Affairs Departments in South Africa? In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Deputy Minister stated a very important fact. He said that the Institute of non-White Administrators in South Africa unanimously supported this Bill, and that is very significant to me because we are dealing here with men from various local authorities who are wrestling every day with the problems of Bantu administration in South Africa. I maintain we are dealing here with men who know from day to day what the practical problems are in regard to this entire matter. I want to repeat that if I wanted to be objective in regard to this, who must I believe and to whom must I pay heed? Would I be correct if I said that I must pay heed only to those people who are directly involved in dealing with Bantu administration in South Africa? For that reason I am grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister for the way in which he has from time to time consulted these people. I am also particularly grateful to know that drafting this Bill also went hand-in-hand with the exchange of ideas between the Institute and the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to emphasize again that I take far more notice of them than I will of the hon. members on the opposite side. These people deal with the practical side of these matters and they know what is going on. For the first time in history employers’ organizations have representation on a body which is responsible for the administration and provision of labour. These employers’ organizations will now be afforded an opportunity, because they will also have representation in the Bantu control boards, to state their problems. Local authorities will also have representation, and in this way the new board will retain its liaison with local authorities. The board will also be able to draw on the years of experience gained by local authorities. I also see great benefits in this Bill for our rural areas. It is a well-known fact that smaller towns, with their lack of finance, do not always have the desirable machinery. The Bantu Administration Board will now meet that deficiency because it will have at its disposal officials of various local authorities who are associated with Bantu administration.

There is another matter which I would like to mention in passing and in regard to which I feel there will be unanimity between this and that side of the House. This is a matter which sometimes gives me cause for concern. I feel that we in this wonderful country of ours, with all its possibilities, have succeeded, particularly during the past few years, in establishing many tourist attractions in our country. When I drive along our national roads, particularly in rural areas, then it worries me when I see those unsightly Bantu dwellings near our national roads. Since organized agriculture will now enjoy representation on such a Bantu administration board, I want to hope and trust that this matter will also be subject to careful scrutiny and that it will in due course be remedied.

Mr. Speaker, on an occasion such as this, as I said at the outset, one cannot but pay tribute to and speak with the greatest appreciation of all the local authorities in South Africa, with one exception—I am referring here to Johannesburg—for the faithful manner in which they have carried out the policy of the National Party Government in years gone by and are still doing today. I can inform hon. members that I am also speaking from personal practical experience here, because it was my pleasant task to be a member of the town council of Welkom for almost fourteen years. I was mayor of Welkom for four years. I see the hon. members for Johannesburg North and Jeppes are not present here. The only difference between them and me is that I was a far better mayor than they were. I say I am speaking from experience because I know that the town councils in South Africa, including that of Welkom, were inspired with only one ideal and that was to place no obstacles in the way of the implementation of the Bantu policy of the Government, because the town councils in South Africa realize that when we are dealing with Bantu policy in South Africa, the Minister and his deputies are from day to day wrestling with a great problem. It is not the easiest problem on earth to solve when we come to colour relationships. That is why it is only with the greatest praise and appreciation that I can take cognizance of the wonderful way in which local authorities in South Africa have, in years gone by, ensured consistently that they strengthen the hands of the Government, that they have continually supported the Government, by carrying out Government policy. Sir, because this is so, I feel that I am completely at liberty today to address a plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister. But before I do so I just want to say this to hon. members on the opposite side: I can address this plea because I believe, as I read the signs of the times, that I am correct in my premise when I say that this Bill will be passed within a few days in any case. Sir, I want to address a plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister to give preference to the Orange Free State, and particularly to the goldfields complex when it comes to the establishment of the first Bantu administration board. The town council of Welkom, together with all the various departments of the latter, deems itself competent and equipped to share in the conversion and desires to make a contribution to the successful functioning of such a board. As motivation for this I just want to submit a few thoughts to the hon. the Deputy Minister: The already existing, efficient organization of the Bantu Affairs Department of Welkom, which could form the nucleas of a Bantu administration board for this region; the already existing regional Bantu beer brewery—this is a regional Bantu beer brewery which is already distributing Bantu beer widely throughout the entire Free State gold fields —; the situation of the gold fields’ Bantu affairs offices which now form a unit together with that of the Board’s Bantu Affairs Department; the large concentration of Bantu in the Orange Free State gold fields complex; the zeal of the town council and officials of Welkom in particular, and those of surrounding local authorities in general, to make their contribution in respect of the establishment and the consequent successful functioning of the envisaged boards; the fact that the Bantu Revenue Account of Welkom at present has accumulated surpluses of more than R2 million at its disposal, which funds will accrue to such a board. I believe that this is an important fact of which the hon. the Deputy Minister could take cognizance. Sir, since all factors which seem to be necessary for the establishment and successful functioning of such a board appear already to exist in and around Welkom, the heart of the Free State gold fields complex, I feel myself at liberty to request the hon. the Deputy Minister to give serious consideration to establishing the first Bantu administration board on the Free State gold fields with Welkom as centre.

Potchefstroom.

In conclusion I just want to say this to hon. members on the opposite side. Experience has taught us in South Africa that hon. members on that side of the House have made many errors in the past …

Not as many as you have.

They have opposed things which were correct …

Like this morning.

… as was proved again this morning. Where hon. members on that side of the House have on various occasions in the past said “no”, they have in a few cases felt sorry that they had not said “yes”. I am just thinking here, in passing, of our becoming a Republic. Was it not they who mounted a campaign against a Republic in South Africa? Then they said “no” …

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

I do so, Sir, with all due respect. In respect of this Bill I just want to say this to the hon. members of the Opposition: they are now saying “no” to this Bill, but I am convinced that in a few years’ time they will bitterly regret not at this stage already having said “yes”.

The hon. member for Welkom ended his speech by pointing to matters in which he maintained this side of the House took up a wrong attitude and later regretted it. I do not accept what he said there, but I will make no comment on it save to remind him of attitudes taken up by his side of the House in which I am quite sure he will agree they were entirely wrong. The first thing I mention is the great admiration held by many people now supporting that side of the House for Hitler and what he was doing. Today admittedly …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill; that has nothing to do with the Bill.

Sir, I am just answering the hon. member for Welkom in the language he used towards us. I could give many other examples, like the war-time Republican Constitution and the socialist ideas which were propounded so much at that time.

And the flag.

But in obedience to your ruling, Sir, I will say no more; I think I have said enough.

Sir, the hon. member for Welkom has no regard for the opinion of this side of the House and much prefers to accept the opinion and attitude of the Institute of Administrators of non-European Affairs. He says that members on this side of the House have no experience of these affairs. I want to say at once that the Institute of Administrators of non-European Affairs must have some good people upon it, but they view this legislation from a very definite and narrow point of view. It is our function as members of Parliament of this country and as an Opposition to view the measure as a whole. This is what we do, and in condemning this Bill we refer to matters quite outside the ken of the administrators of non-European affairs. When the hon. member says that this side of the House has no experience in these affairs, let me just remind him, firstly, that there are many members on this side of the House who have served on local authority bodies and have had intimate dealings with the very matters now under discussion; secondly, it is a council controlled by this side of the House which for over 20 years has successfully controlled and administered the largest collection of Native people in this country. We are often told that peace and order exist in this country. We all have our different views as to what that is due to. I take it that the hon. member for Welkom will be prepared to concede a share of the credit for this to the administrators of non-European affairs in Johannesburg and to the council which lays down the policy to be administered by those administrators. The hon. member for Transkei in an exemplary speech dealt with both the general and detailed objections which this side of the House has against this measure.

He merely was the mouthpiece for the Institute of Race Relations.

He dealt with it in great detail and so far there has been no adequate answer. But no doubt the Deputy Minister will answer. I want this afternoon rather to deal with the more general aspects against which this Bill must be seen, and to give some idea to the hon. member for Welkom of matters other than detailed administration which are at stake in this measure. Let me first say, as others have said on this side, that we welcome the greater mobility of labour within the urban areas which this Bill affords the Bantu people. But we stress, and we say again, that this greater mobility could have been introduced without dispensing with and taking over from the local authorities concerned. Since Union in 1910, that is 60 years and more ago, matters affecting the urban Natives have been entrusted to local councils of our cities, our towns and our villages, entrusted to the councils of those places in which these Natives live. It is true that they were entrusted to them as agents for the Government, but this entrusting, to my mind, is more than a mere question of agency; it is very much a question of the local people knowing best how to handle the day-to-day affairs of their Black workers as they do indeed of the White workers and citizens of their towns.

The boards will also consist of local people.

The Deputy Minister says the boards will consist of local people, but they will consist of entirely nominated people, whereas the people who exercise control at present are the elected representatives of the people with their ear to the ground of the needs and requirements of their cities, towns and villages and the traditional democratic method of exercising control and ensuring good government.

Elected by whom? By Whites.

Elected by the people of these cities, towns and villages. They are the town councillors who control the non-European Affairs Departments at present administering the affairs of Natives. I agree that they are elected by Whites, but the members of these boards will be nominated by a Government not by any means representative of the people of many of these towns, cities and villages. [Interjection.] This fact that now, in the year 1971, the Government are effecting a take-over from local authorities is to my mind by no means a mere matter of administration; it is a historic step which confirms that we are at a watershed in regard to Native Affairs. Just as on the one hand we had that watershed of a move to sovereign independence of what were hitherto the Reserves, so in regard to the urban Natives there has been a watershed. That watershed is represented by the decision to move our entire Native population in the urban areas on to a migratory basis, if possible. This Bill, which is innocent looking in many respects, sets the seal upon this decision of the Government to convert everything to a migratory basis. We have known for many years that the Government has had before the people, the bodies affected, draft Bills much akin to the one we now have before us. We know that in those draft Bills were clauses which severely affected the section 10 rights of the Native people in our cities. It is true that in the present measure that matter has been excised, but on the other hand the Government is securing its purpose to place Bantu labour on a migratory basis by means, as has been pointed out, of the persuasion of so many of the families of these people to move out of the cities. At the present time I do not doubt that the Government is able, by means of this so-called persuasion, to secure the movement of Bantu out of the cities in sufficient numbers to make it unnecessary to take any further steps, but one certainly is by no means confident that we shall not hear more of this matter in due course.

I believe that this measure in a sense, therefore, sets the seal upon this revolutionary change in regard to the urban Native. I may say that, not only under Governments of this party, but also under Governments of the party opposite there was never any question that our entire urban Native labour force should be placed on a migratory basis. Under all previous Nationalist Governments of Gen. Hertzog and Dr. Malan this was never an aim of their policies. It is just as new an innovation as is the whole question of sovereign independence. I say therefore that this Bill serves the whole aim of Government policy to move all the urban Native people on to a migratory basis. I believe that it serves to show the contrast between the two visions of the party opposite and of this party in regard to the urban Native.

Let us look briefly at some of the features of the Nationalist vision for the urban Native. Firstly more and more hostels are appearing in our towns and cities. In 1964 a law was passed in which reference was made to hostels and we are today seeing more and more of these hostels appearing in places like Diepkloof. It is now being said that in Cape Town employers are being urged and encouraged to erect hostels and this is to be the new basis upon which the labour will be housed here. This side concedes completely that there is a place for migratory labour in our system. It has been traditionally so in regard to the mines, and certain other categories of work, but it is an entirely different proposition to move the entire Bantu labour force onto a migratory basis. In the mines it has traditionally been the young men who have come to sow their wild oats and to have the experience of working there for three or four years. In most cases they have been unmarried men. It is quite a different question, however, in the case of the men who are to be operatives in factories. That is to be their place of employment year in and year out, from the start of their working life to their retirement, and now they too will be placed upon a migratory basis. The work in the mines, hard though it often is, can fairly be described as being unskilled in most cases. Operatives in factories, however, compete in world competition. They need to be highly productive and they need to grow annually more productive.

The hon. member knows very little about the Natives in the mines; these Natives spend their whole lives working at the mines.

This may be true for certain people, but it certainly is not true for the majority of them.

They are on a migratory basis.

Very often they are on a migratory basis for a few years, because they do not always come back again. This is true of people from Malawi, Portuguese East Africa and certain other places.

Hon. members opposite should bear this in mind when they look at our economic position. Our balance of payments position is one of the matters causing most concern to the hon. Minister of Finance and to the country. Our balance of payments position is clearly moving into more difficult times with the value of gold produced remaining constant. With our population and our standards rising, our gold production forms an ever smaller percentage of our exports. So it is that our balance of payments and our export/import position is in a most unsatisfactory position. These are facts that cannot just be wishes away. These are the hard facts of life, just as when one’s bank manager calls one in and says that something must be done about one’s overdraft. By contrast with this, the U.P. policy, as I have said, continues with what has been the traditional policy of South Africa in this regard. We agree concerning categories of migratory labour. Not every Native wants to bring his wife to town, nor will he be encouraged to do so. Equally we recognize an urbanized and detribalized class of Native, who must have a settled life near his work and as such benefits the entire country.

Side by side with the rising hostels, these gloomy, concrete structures which are most unattractive, merely places to lay one’s head at night, is a growing shortage of homes in our big cities. Johannesburg alone has a shortage of 15,000 units for families. This is a shocking condemnation of the Government in this time.

Can you not see how inconsistent you are? On the one hand you say it is based on migratory labour alone and on the other hand you talk of a shortage of houses. That is nonsense.

No, that is not so. I would like to deal with that. The Deputy Minister says that it is a shocking contradiction that, on the one hand, we criticize them for moving to a complete basis of migratory labour and at the same time for there being no houses for the families.

That is your accusation against us. How do you account for it?

I will deal with it. I will now account for it. The position is that the Government’s stated policy is to go over to complete migratory labour. They have not got there yet, it is true. But they are pushing people out now, as fast as they can separate them. Surely the Deputy Minister does not run away from their policy stated by no one less than the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who stated that their policy was to get all the Native labour in the urban areas onto a migratory basis. That is his policy and I condemn it. Most of the people on that side of the House in their heart of hearts condemn it. Of course I criticize him for it, because it is a thoroughly bad aim to have. But now I also criticize him for having in our cities thousands and thousands of Bantu families that have no homes to go to. They are either living in crowded conditions with other Bantu families that have homes or they are creeping into the backyards of White and other people and causing all sorts of objections to arise all around the country. So, the hon. Deputy Minister should take better stock of where his policy has got to. His policy has got to the position that, in Johannesburg alone, there are 15,000 Bantu families requiring homes. This inefficient Government has not provided the homes for these people. That is the position. I am afraid that the hon. Deputy Minister must realize that they naturally should be criticized on both those grounds.

Side by side with these rising hostels is this terrible shortage of houses and all the evil consequences which flow from it. I do not doubt that this is part of the Government’s attempt to discourage the Bantu people from being there, persuasion of the Government that they should go out to these places in the areas which are to become the homelands. Because this matter is quite often wrongly used in this House, I would like to make one reference in passing to the position as it was after the war. There was, of course, quite a great shortage of houses, and hence many “pondokkies” after the war. We must remember that a war was being fought and people were drawn in and therefore it was not possible … [Interjection.] Let us be fair on this; I will take any criticism gamely. Let us take this in perspective. The war brought in people in great numbers to Johannesburg and there alone we found a considerable number of “pondokkies”.

Talk about Cape Town; you do not know anything about Johannesburg.

I want to remind hon. members opposite that it was not a United Party municipal council that governed the Johannesburg municipal area in the war years … [Interjections.] Do hon. members not know that it was a Labour Party local authority? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am quite glad that I have caused some amusement to hon. members on that side of the House. The United Party took over the Johannesburg Municipal Council in 1946; up to that time the council consisted of a majority of Labour Party members.

As hon. members know the only party in this Parliament which was allied with the Labour Party is the party on the opposite side of the House. To show hon. members that this is not a kind of problem that can be solved overnight, it was only in about 1954 that any impression was made upon the shortage of housing in Johannesburg. Now I want to move from past to present. I say that the way the Government has allowed the housing position, particularly of the non-White people of this country, to slip back in these 20 years, is shocking. The number of “pondokkies” that you see and the infinitely more that you do not see in South Africa today is appalling. It is an appalling indictment of this Government especially when they are so keen to criticize the alleged failure of the United Party during the period after the war. I think they should first remember what they have failed to do in these piping days of peace.

The second feature in South Africa with this new policy in regard to urban Natives is these rising number of resettlement townships which are all situated on land which is included in a Native reserve. In the main, I say, these places are places of gloom. They are places where women and children and the aged are found. With few exceptions no work is available there; with few exceptions there is no plot to till. In these native “statte” of old there were the “rietdak” houses and the occupants of these huts could till the land which was situated nearby. There they could have their own plots. These unfortunate resettlement townships—perhaps the reason is space or whatever it may be—are places of gloom. So often the facilities are not there. Our policy, by contrast, is not to separate the old people when their working days are over, from their families who can sustain them. How often have we not heard from the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, and quite rightly so, that a civilized society keeps these old people within its embrace. Then there is the interworking with the young and the old and what a noble thing it is, we are told, for young people to look after their old people.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that hon. members opposite, when they reflect on this aspect of their policy, can view it with pride. Let us be fair to hon. members opposite. They do not wish to deny family life. It is not their wish, but equally paramount with them is, what they believe to be the need to save White civilization. They believe that this is the way to achieve that object.

You do not believe in that.

No, we do, but we believe it can and will be done in a different way. We believe in it just as strongly. We want to save the Deputy Minister just as much as he wants to save himself.

Hon. members opposite have come up with various ideas in order to try to neutralize this separation of families. We have discussed before the border areas policy. How much is that policy not in discredit today among academic and businessmen on their side. Now we have the quaint idea of jetting these Bantu workers daily from places like Groblersdal and Mafeking into Johannesburg. This is a worthy motive. But in today’s very paper we find a complete refutal of that whole motive. Did hon. members not see in today’s Burger the fact that the cost of a daily return ticket from Malmesbury to Cape Town for a White worker has gone up to R30 per month?

The hon. member for Brakpan wants to bring these workers from Mafeking and Groblersdal to the Rand. Can you imagine what the cost of this will be? There is not time to dwell upon it. I think when one has pointed to the cost in this regard, one immediately shows how ridiculous it is. If the hon. member for Brakpan will say: “Not daily but weekly,” then I say to him: “What about the question of two homes?” That Native worker must have a home in the reserve and a home in the town. Hon. members opposite know better than any the high cost of keeping two homes. Time does not allow me to dwell upon the disadvantages for South Africa of this greater and growing emphasis on migratory labour. One knows of the high rate of crime; one knows of the poverty, the malnutrition; one knows of the illegitimacy among the Coloured people and among the Bantu people and how this affects our crime rate. What do we not lose in efficiency and, therefore, in wealth for everybody through this system? I say the approach of hon. members opposite is that they do not like doing this, but they are doing it in order to save the White people. In other words, they say “the end justifies the means”. That is the most dangerous approach which one can make to affairs in any civilized country at this time. We also believe most sincerely and completely that it is absolutely essential for the White people to survive in South Africa to lead other people to a finer life.

In conclusion I want to remind hon. members opposite—I have said this before, but I want to say it again—that they have always had a view that we as a White people have a destiny in South Africa, a destiny, in the words of Prof. Viljoen “to Christianize and civilize the non-White peoples”. I say nothing can be a greater antithesis of Christianity and civilization than to move on increasingly until finally we reach with our Bantu working urban people a position of complete migratory labour.

Mr. Speaker, to follow up on what the hon. member for Pinelands said in his argument, would tempt one to discuss the Government’s entire housing policy, its welfare policy and its policy in general in regard to the Bantu. It is very definitely not our task this afternoon to discuss the matter so generally. But for the hon. member to drag Jessie McPherson into this debate and to blame the Labourites of bygone days for the blunders of the Johannesburg United Party City Council is really a very poor show. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the member for Transkei made the first part of his speech the other day …

[Inaudible.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Turffontein hear me? The hon. member for Westdene may proceed.

Mr Speaker when the hon. member for Transkei made the first part of his speech the other day, he spoke about poor administration and said “It is because of the interference by the State in the administration of local authorities”. I then thought that he was not being very serious and he was in fact just trying to get the last few minutes of the evening. But believe it or not, he came forward the next day with the second part of his speech, and moved an amendment. In that amendment he said that the United Party was not going to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, because it removed the application of the laws regarding urban Bantu from the local authority where they rightly belong. He also said that it vested the Minister with dictatorial and far-reaching powers.

In the first instance, as regards the powers of which these are being divested, I just want to point out that the hon. member for Welkom a moment ago quoted section 11 of the Constitution Act in this connection. He indicated very clearly that control and administration of Bantu Affairs is vested in the State President, who exercises all the special powers in regard to Bantu administration. Now I am asking the hon. Minister whether they want to change that part of the Constitution Act? As far as we are concerned, this is what this matter is all about. The Government is in this measure requesting the right to exercise the right it has in terms of section 11 of the Constitution Act. That right the Government has in the course of years handed over in part to local authorities. If we consider the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act of 1923, and the Consolidated Act, Act No. 25 of 1945, with its numerous long clauses, we find that everything which is stated in section 11 is embodied in that legislation. Not a jot or tittel of the original intension has been reproved. I want to associate myself with the quotation from Dr. Verwoerd which was read a moment ago by the hon. member for Welkom. One should really quote the entire speech to the United Party, because there is such a tremendous amount they can learn from it. Dr. Verwoerd was talking to the administrators of non-White affairs. The history of these matters has been written by Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts. It is not we who formulated it. It is history which indicates that the Government has the plenary power to formulate policy, and that local authorities are only afforded the opportunity to apply it and carry it out. In this regard Dr. Verwoerd was discussing the matter of licencing. The other day I found it terrible to hear how the hon. member for Transkei referred to these licenced officers. He referred to them in a derogatory manner. He did it spitefully and he said it spitefully. He even insinuated ugly things. I would like to read out the first section of his Hansard to the House. He said: “The managers of Bantu municipal affairs have to be licenced by this Government”. I shall return to this again in a moment, because I want to show how the hon. member for Transkei is dancing to the tune of other people who told him to say these things. He went on: “Their livelihood, therefore, depends on the appreciation of the necessity of carrying out the instructions and wishes of this Government”. Nowhere in this debate was a grosser insult expressed towards people who have carried out their duties over a long period of time than the hon. member for Transkei did.

Are they not the agents of the Government?

That is not our argument. This has been stated repeatedly already. I shall now indicate what the functions of these people are. He said of these people—I may not use the word “bribe”, because it is not stated here—“Their livelihood depends on the appreciation of the necessity of carrying out Government instructions”. What does all that mean? It means that they are not people with an opinion of their own, and that they do not think for themselves. I now want to quote what Dr. Verwoerd said on 17th September, 1956, if I am correct. He said: “The licensee is a person who has duties to fulfil in regard to which the State has the right of supervision. It is of so much importance that the State is entitled to cancel the licence if a municipal administrator does not properly fulfil the functions entrusted to him.” That is altogether in line with the Constitution Act. What right does the hon. member for Transkei have to say that these people are merely dancing to the tune of the Government? Dr. Verwoerd went on to say: “The licence granted to these people gives them the patronage of the Minister and of the Department if they should encounter certain conflicts in the lawful fulfilment of their duties.” Here the policy of the Government is very clearly defined. We accept that these people have certain rights, duties and instructions which they must carry out in terms of the Constitution Act. I now want to ask the hon. member for Transkei whether they want this provision to be withdrawn, whether they want to delete it and whether they want to remove it.

The hon. member for Pinelands a moment ago sang the praises of the Municipality of Johannesburg. It suits the United Party to do so, because it is their people who are in charge there. However, I want to tell hon. members on the opposite side that this is precisely what our difficulty is. They say they do not want this Act implemented because these licences will dance to the tune of the Government. In addition they say by implication that this City Council of theirs, which is United Party controlled, does not want to implement the Government’s policy. That is precisely what the Act says we must do. The Act says that the municipalities must implement the Government’s policy. I can quote to hon. members where Dr. Verwoerd elaborated at length on this. He pointed out that there could not be two policy making bodies as far as this matter was concerned. Because this is the case, this Government went and sought the co-operation of all the people dealing with this matter. Sir, I want to refer to a speech made by the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration and Development on 29th November, 1967, before the Transvaal Chamber of Industries. He spoke there about the problems in regard to Bantu administration. First he referred in particular to the labour problem in regard to Bantu, and he then said—

This the Minister said in 1967 already, and subsequently invited the Camber of Industries to hold a discussion with him in regard to this matter, and they did so, as the hon. the Deputy Minister also told us.

Sir, I have a problem with the United Party. They are putting up this fight here in Parliament to bring about the defeat of this legislation, but I want to allege that they are in fact dancing to the tune of other people. I have here in my hand a number of statements which appeared in the Sunday Times of 20th December, 1970. This report appeared a few days after the Secretary for Bantu Administration had divulged that such legislation was being envisaged. Then we got this kind of thing—

I quote what the Sunday Times wrote—

Here they talk about “draconian powers”, and in the amendment the Opposition talks about dictatorial powers. But, Sir, I want to come to something else; I want to tell the United Party that they are nurturing two adders in their bosom. If they do not get rid of those adders, they are going to have a problem. Sir, I am now going to quote to you what Mr. Beyers Naudé said. The Sunday Times asked for his comment on this envisaged legislation, and this is what he said—

He had not yet read the Bill; he had not yet studied it, but he was prepared to make a long comment on it, and he hides behind the words “has given rise to”. Subsequently he said “the Bill appears to be”— again just another vague misgiving. All kinds of things were mentioned without the Bill having been studied. Mr. Beyers Naudé, the Leader of the Christian Institute, went further and said—

“To conscript”! Sir, these words were not used without a purpose. He said that he had not studied the Bill, but he used words such as “it gives rise to”, “it appears” and that it appears that conscription may be applied, and to crown it all, conscription as farm labourers. We still remember the events of a few years ago when those people, in conjunction with these same people, kicked up a fuss about what was supposedly happening in the so-called prison gaols, etc.

This is the suspicion and this is my objection, that these people allow themselves to be misled by these things. They must not tell me now that Beyers Naudé is not their man, because in the same report, linked to this one, they mention three Johannesburg leaders, Messrs. Powell, Harry Schwartz and J. F. Oberholzer. Listen to what they are in agreement with—

It does not matter who said it. It is still true.

They agree with this. The point I want to make is not what these people said, but that the United Party allowed themselves to be taken in too by these people. They dare not today say anything different to what these people are saying, because the incitement and agitations of the Sunday Times and of a Beyers Naudé of the Christian Institute is endorsed by those people, and that is my point. I may not say here that they are agitating, nor do I say so, but I maintain that they use the same terminology to say the same things these people are saying, and these people say these things before having read the Bill.

I want to come to a second group of people, and they are the Institute of Race Relations. Our problem with these people is that the Christian Institute sails under the flag of so-called Christianity and dons the mantle of Christianity. From beneath that mantle they play a political tune, and the United Party dances to that tune. I have the same difficulties with the Institute of Race Relations, these people who hide behind their mantle of science and the study of racial problems. These people issue one statement after the other. I have here in my hand No. 168 of 1970. This shows how many they issue. When I read this statement, I began to underline what did not seem correct to me, and you can see how it has been underscored. Almost every line written here is not true, or a question mark can be appended in the margin, or is incorrectly presented. I maintain that these people don the mantle of science and from beneath that mantle they are playing a tune to which those people are dancing. That is why we had the phenomenon here yesterday that what the hon. member for Johannesburg North was speaking, I quickly laid hands on this document and what I found interesting was that he used almost every argument stated here in the same sequence, correct or incorrect. He used them as they are stated there, but this document predates by a considerable margin the first standpoint of the United Party in regard to this matter.

I want to tell the United Party that Bantu administration is a very wide field. It is not merely concerned with a little influx control or a little housing or a little transportation of the Bantu. When I consider all the factors we have to deal with, I should like to quote a man like Dr. Eiselen, who himself said that he was merely making a summary. He spoke about the clearance of chaotic Bantu housing in the industrial areas, the introduction of the site-and-service scheme, the replacement of the irksome pass system with a comfortable and efficient reference book identification, the creation of labour bureaux and everything which has a bearing on that, the establishment of tribal, regional and territorial authorities. Then he mentioned another long list which I do not have the time now to read out. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing here with a very comprehensive problem when we talk about Bantu administration, and what we are requesting here today is not a debate on each of those separate aspects we are administering. We are requesting the right to place what was allocated to the Government by the Constitution Act where it belongs, namely in the hands of the Government, and the Government is requesting broader powers to that end. This yellow document to which I referred, is full of anomalies. The hon. members for Johannesburg North and the Transkei echoed the sentiments expressed therein. They stated precisely what it contained therein. It is stated there: “There is no provision for public accountability”. They say that it will not be necessary for the Board to report to the public. Sir, statements of these kind are merely being made in order to sow suspicion. While we are engaged in waging a titanic struggle abroad against those who want to bring about our downfall, we find that others are trying to create the impression that the Minister is a “Czar with draconian powers”. They are trying to imply that he has dictatorial powers. In sections 26 and 27 of Act No. 25 of 1945 it is very clearly stated what the responsibilities of the municipalities are at present. We know what the duties of this board is going to be, as far as accountability is concerned. Those two sections state very clearly that certain statistical particulars have to be furnished, and that a report has to be made to the Minister and the Department. However, those hon. members feel themselves at liberty to say that the public will not know what is going on. Sir, as long as they are doing that, they are merely running a race against the Progressive Party outside. They are trying to see whether they cannot execute a better dance to the tune the liberalists are playing to them from the corner of the Institute of Race Relations and the Christian Institute. I want to predict that this dance is going to come off second best in this dance.

Sir, I find it perfectly understandable that the hon. member for Westdene should be so enthusiastic about these Bantu affairs advisory boards. I should imagine that he is even more enthusiastic than ever about the provision in this Bill that persons are nominated to these boards by the Minister, because I can foresee his position after the next general election, when he is very likely to be looking for a new job. To have the title MBAAB after one’s name may not sound as good as the title M.P., but at least he will not be in danger of losing an election. I shall go a little further and say that if this Bill becomes law, I am even prepared to put the case of that hon. member, as well as those of the hon. members for Boksburg, Springs, Germiston District and Randburg, to the United Party Minister, to see if he cannot perhaps accommodate them.

The hon. member for Westdene mentioned that licensed officials of non-European Affairs Departments were entitled to their own opinions and certainly have their own opinions on the advisability of this Bill. I want to say to him that by the time this Bill in its draft form reached them, they must have realized that the writing was on the wall. They must have realized that their departments were going to be swallowed by this hon. Minister’s department and that they themselves would be brought into this Minister’s department if he wanted to compel them to do so. I do not think it is fair to suggest that people in that sort of predicament could possibly have brought completely independent minds to bear on the merits of this Bill.

If this Bill in its broad outline and in its detail reveals anything at all, it betrays this Government’s total bankruptcy as far as any realistic or constructive policy for urban Bantu is concerned. We cannot look at this Bill in a vacuum. We cannot ignore what for many years now has been the case in the Republic, namely that the Bantu who settled in urban areas, the areas regarded by this Government as the White areas, run to many millions in number and that these people are no more citizens of far-off Bantu homelands than we of European origin in this country are still tied to the various European countries from which our forefathers came many generations ago.

This measure sets out to establish an entirely new basis for the future administration of Bantu affairs in our country in all the areas outside the so-called homelands. The basic philosophy behind the measure shows how radically we on this side of the House differ in our approach from the members on the Government’s side. Putting these matters at their broadest, we believe in recognizing the reality of the situation. We believe that it is not a new situation, but a situation which has been present with us for many years. A lot has been said about Soweto and its 800,000 permanent inhabitants. There are millions of people in other parts of the country too who long ago became a permanent part of our urban or non-homeland population.

They never became a permanent part.

Just as one cannot turn the clock back and move back in time, so it is impossible merely by passing a law to ensure that second, third and perhaps fourth generation Bantu urban dwellers will revert to their tribal status and go back to an earlier stage of their development. That is quite impossible. How the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration can possibly take this approach, is beyond our comprehension.

We of the United Party, the Official Opposition, believe that the millions of Bantu who are now settled in the urban areas should have been recognized long ago as belonging to permanent communities and that the task of a good government in this country will be to ensure that such communities become as stable as possible, not as unstable as possible. The view of this Government, in fact the very aim of this Government, seems to be to make our urban Bantu communities as unstable as possible. That is where we differ so radically from the gentlemen on the other side. We want the urban Bantu, who are a fact of existence in this country, to grow roots, to be able to build their houses, to live decent lives with, as far as possible, their families around them and to participate responsibility in the administration of their local affairs. This Nationalist Government is setting out to do the exact opposite. This Bill before us represents a major step in what the Government is aiming to achieve. What are the ends which the Government wants to achieve? The Government wants to convert our urban Bantu population and, for that matter, all other Bantu outside the homelands into a rootless, voiceless and rightless mass.

Nonsense! The hon. member knows better than that.

No, I am sorry if the truth hurts that hon. member, but these are the facts of the situation. The Government wants to control them as rigidly as possible. It wants to control where they should live, where they should work and what kind of work they should do. It want to try to break down whatever orientation they might have developed in the direction of the so-called White areas, which in fact are their own settled areas as well, and it tries to induce them to accept that they really belong in the faraway homelands. The hon. member for Brakpan told us quite a lot about this when he spoke earlier in this debate. What he said was nonsense, of course, and it caused a fair amount of merriment. I believe we should examine what he said very closely because it betrays a lot of the thinking which is going on on that side of the House. I wonder, in fact, whether it was not betraying quite a lot of the thinking of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and of his Deputy Minister who is handling this legislation. The hon. member for Brakpan has to a large extent performed a service for which everybody in this House should be grateful. He left us in no doubt at all as to the woolly-mindedness of this Government in tackling what is really one of the major problems of our time. I might add that he also highlighted how far this Government, in trying to implement its ideological and impossible plans, has driven itself away from reality. The hon. member for Brakpan told us—and we have heard this sort of nonsense before—

The hon. the Minister and his Deputy are silent. We all enjoyed the joke at the time, but I wonder if we should not pause a moment to examine some of the implications of this type of remark. Well, the hon. member for Brakpan’s faith in the ability of this Government to create a transport system big enough to do this, is touching. There have been suggestions that this mass transportation should be done by way of Jumbo jets. I do not know whether they have consulted the hon. the Minister of Transport to ascertain whether he can build new railway lines for them. Maybe they are thinking of a vast mass bus transport system or perhaps the hon. the Minister of Transport himself might suggest a pipeline. I wonder what the hon. the Minister of Transport will have to say if this question were to be put pertinently to him. I can go further. If I can get the hon. the Minister’s and his Deputy’s attention. I would like to know whether even they have discussed the question of mass transportation of Bantu between our urban areas and the homelands. I see that they are at the moment engaged in a conversation and therefore I will repeat the question: Could they perhaps indicate to us whether even they have seriously debated with the Minister of Transport the question of the feasibility of mass transportation of the Bantu workers on a daily basis to and from the homelands?

[Inaudible.]

I am sorry, the hon. the Deputy Minister said something but I could not hear him. I wonder whether he could speak a little bit louder.

I said I had heard the question in the first instance. You did not have to repeat it.

As this House has already been told in this debate, the. South African Railways are already experiencing the utmost difficulties in transporting Bantu workers from Soweto to Johannesburg. I do think that, in the interests of logic and perhaps a reasonable level of debate, this hon. Deputy Minister might ensure that next time he brings speakers into a debate we are not presented with suggestions such as we have had today. What we can take as common cause, of course, is the fact that the hon. member for Brakpan did not have the faintest idea of what he was talking about. Now and for the future we cannot even imagine any means of transporting millions of Bantu workers on a migratory basis between the homelands and our urban industrial complexes, whether it is on a daily, weekly or even a monthly basis.

This Nationalist Government departs from reality and seeks comfort in the most extravagant fantasies. This Bill is in fact based on a myth, the myth that our urban Bantu communities do not belong where they are and where they have been for generations, but that they belong in far-off homelands. But the legislation before this House is far from a myth.

But how do you come to that?

This legislation, we all know, is eminently capable of implementation in the most stringent way. Here I think that if the hon. the Deputy Minister should be taken to task for anything at all, it is for the fact that in his introductory speech to this debate he glossed over all the really important and dangerous aspects of this Bill and tried to present it as though it were some gentle measure, just allowing the Government to have more efficient control of the situation or more efficient administration. What the hon. the Deputy Minister is seeking to do with this legislation is to try to translate his overall policy, his ideological blueprint, into some tangible form, by assuming to himself the power to regulate the lives of all non-homeland Bantu literally from the cradle to the grave. In setting out to do this, he is not only creating for himself a dictatorship over an empire that controls the vast majority of the populalocal authorities and even to people who are now the employees of such authorities. Subsection (1) of clause 16 enables Bantu administration boards—the sort of boards that are going to be created to take over the control of all Bantu in non-homeland areas—to demand of local authorities that they provide certain services. If the local authorities refuse, or if there is a dispute in the matter, then the final power to compel a local authority to provide the services required rests with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, in terms of subsection (4). The hon. member for Langlaagte spoke very glowingly of this type of provision. In fact, he went so far as to claim that there was considerable support for this general approach. The hon. member is, of course, a former member of the Johannesburg City Council. He said that there had been a feeling among councillors in Johannesburg for some considerable time that there should be a metropolitan approach to the provision of services. That is true, but can it be said by any stretch of the imagination, that clause 16 of this Bill provides for an actual metropolitan approach by elected local authorities? Of course it cannot. What it does is to provide that the Minister, if he wants to. may dictate to the local authorities whose services he wants to use. He can dictate in that he can say what he wants of a local authority and then stipulate the terms on which he is to receive it.

It is only if they do not want to do it.

Exactly. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister not listening to me? The hon. member for Langlaagte was a member of the Johannesburg City Council for many years. I believe it is not inconceivable that in his fairly long tenure of office as a city councillor of Johannesburg, he did at times, or he might have, put the interests of Johannesburg ahead of those of his political party. I wonder, when he was still in the Johannesburg City Council, whether he, in the interests of the council as a body representing the ratepayers, would possibly have agreed to this type of imposition on the rights of the Council, which could, in the absolute and final discretion of the Minister, result in heavy capital expenditure which might or might not be properly compensated for.

Then we have the provisions of clause 10 of this Bill. The hon. member for Westdene seemed to take it amiss that a Sunday newspaper, the Sunday Times, should have referred to the provisions of this Bill as making the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration a Czar over the Bantu outside the homelands. I wonder if the hon. member even took the trouble to read subclause (10), because this subclause makes this hon. Minister the Czar over White employees of our local authorities. Subclause (10) enables the hon. the Minister to dictate the future of White employees of local authorities. I want to read this subclause because I think it is very important to get it all on record here and now. Sub-clause (10) (a) reads as follows—

Thus far it is perfectly all right, but the paragraph reads further—

If that were to be reduced to plain English, all it means is that if a council employee does not want to join this hon. Minister’s Department when he is offered a job, and if this hon. Minister thinks he is being unreasonable in turning down the offer, this hon. Minister then has the right to sack that employee not only from his Department, but from the council by which he is employed.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister disagrees, he should go hack and read his own legislation. [Interjections.] I wonder how this hon. Deputy Minister reconciles a provision of this nature with what he said in introducing the Second Reading of this Bill, because what he said was that the effect of all of this would be to give the council employees the right of choice. That is what he said. I suggest that that is absolute nonsense. [Interjections.]

Order!

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the provisions of clause (10) are in the classical tradition of the oldtime press gangs. Why should the hon. the Minister seek to take this type of power? I want to add that clause 10 (10) (b) makes the Minister’s position quite plain. It reads:

There is no right of appeal to anybody. Why should he have the right, a right which might be exercised in a fit of pique, to sack a council employee from service in the council just because that employee does not want to transfer to the hon. the Minister’s Department?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to other aspects of this Bill generally, aspects which we submit will have the effect of breaking down more than half a century of goodwill that has been established between local authorities and the Bantu whose affairs they have administered. Here it must be remembered that the local authorities have carried out their work in the interest of the people, in the interest of their own ratepayers, of their own White voters as well as in the interest of the Bantu and not as part of a grand ideological design that has no regard for individual right, but seeks to impose a system for the system’s sake. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in introducing this Bill, suggested to us that his Department, in fact, has the capacity to be more humane than local authorities. I am quite sure that this in theory might well be true. In practice, I suggest, it is far from true. How does his attitude, for instance, square with the official attitude adopted by a former colleague of his, also a Deputy Minister, who spoke of non-productive Bantu in urban areas as being superfluous appendages? This hon. Deputy Minister, it is true, in recent times appears to have been at pains to dissociate himself from this remark. But can this be taken as an official change of heart on the part of the Department? Then we have another former colleague of this hon. Deputy Minister who was also a Deputy Minister associated with him and who is now Minister of Community Development. He stated it as policy that living conditions of Bantu in White areas were not to be made too comfortable in case it should induce them to stay in the White areas. Is that still policy, and if so, does this square with the so-called humane approach suggested by this hon. Deputy Minister? This is a very real question, Mr. Speaker, because I suggest that if the Deputy Minister had any such thoughts, those thoughts have remained inside his head. One only has to look at the respective types of hostel accommodation provided by the Johannesburg City Council and the Resettlement Board to see that the Johannesburg City Council hostel accommodation, even though it is still comparatively basic, is infinitely superior to that provided by the Resettlement Board under the authority of the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, here are several other aspects which I want to touch on. I want to say that we on this side of the House obviously welcome one thing, which is the possibility under this new system of there being a greater mobility of labour. This cuts both ways. It operates in favour of employers in that it will iron out a lot of their problems and I think it is fair to say that it will also operate in favour of the Bantu; in other words, their position is for the moment going to be improved. Our objection, of course, as has already been said, is that this legislation merely uses this one good provision as a smokescreen for introducing any number of other things and I am afraid that in coming with this legislation this Government has managed to leave many people under a misapprehension. If, for instance, you take the attitude of organized industry to this Bill, you will see that the Federated Chamber of Industries has welcomed the greater mobility of labour, as we do, but what the Chamber of Industries does not seem to have applied its mind to, is the fact that the labour pools in the new enlarged administration areas themselves are not going to be extended. There is no suggestion that influx control, for instance, is going to be relaxed. [Time expired.]

The argument which the hon. member for Kensington has just delivered, plus all the other speeches of hon. members opposite, have made a few things clear to me. The first is that they have only come to light with a few arguments that did not appear in this yellow circular of the Institute of Race Relations or in the Sunday Times. From their ranks in this debate only one single argument has emerged which they themselves have formulated. This was the standpoint the hon. member for Johannesburg North tried to adopt yesterday when he said that a referendum should now be held about this aspect in a place like Soweto, for example. Mr. Speaker, I have never in my life seen anything more amateurish than this very thing, because just before the hon. member expressed his idea, what did the hon. member for Transkei say? I think he had a suspicion that the hon. the Minister had consulted with the Bantu as far as this matter was concerned.

The hon. member for Transkei said that it does not mean a thing if the Bantu were to welcome this legislation; then one cannot believe the Bantu, and he gave reasons why he had said it. If the Bantu were to say they welcomed this legislation we must not believe it, but just after that this hon. member gets up and proposes that a referendum should be held in a place like Soweto. I now ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North in his absence: What does he think such a referendum will mean to the hon. member for Transkei? What is more, Sir, when the hon. member for Transkei made his statement he received tremendously riotous support from the Opposition. I now get the idea that the hon. member who came to light with the referendum notion is not even going to have a seconder on that side of the House for his motion. It seems to me as if he stands alone.

No, the hon. member for Houghton will support him.

Sir, another aspect of that motion that appears to me to be amateurish is that the hon. member says that a referendum must be held in a place like Soweto. If the hon. member is going to hold a referendum in his own constituency, asking the electorate whether they are Nationalists or United Party supporters, and the result tallies with what we know it will be, what would this mean? In that single constituency we would gain the impression that South Africa predominantly supports the United Party, while we are sitting in this House of Assembly with more than a two-thirds majority of supporters who are Nationalists. In other words such a proposal means absolutely nothing it itself.

But, Sir, the second thing that has become clear to me from what hon. members opposite said is that the Opposition is not only 25 years behind the times; they have now already fallen a quarter of a century behind their own views as far as this matter is concerned, because at a certain stage in the history of the United Party there were people who in a fleeting moment of levelheadedness began to realize that this matter we are discussing today should fall under the Central Government. That became clear to me from a speech that a United Party supporter made here in the House of Assembly in 1945 when the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act was consolidated. On that occasion the then member for Johannesburg West, who has passed away, said to the Minister who submitted the legislation that merely consolidating the legislation was not enough, but that the Minister should do more than that because the situation had become such that more legislation was required. He motivated this. I want to quote to you, Sir, what Mr. Tighy said in the House of Assembly at the time.

When was that?

It was on 6th March, 1945 (Hansard, col. 2893). Mr. Tighy said—

Sir, it was a United Party member who said that 26 years ago, and I now tell the United Party members who are sitting here today that they are a quarter of a century behind their own views.

Sir, I want to go further and say that I do not agree with a certain statement that Mr. Tighy made here at the time when he said that the town councils were not competent to handle this matter. I think the town councils handled this matter competently, but the present system does not allow for the highest efficiency to be maintained as far as this matter is concerned. I think the reasons were stated very clearly by hon. members on this side. There are so many bodies responsible for this matter. In my own district, to take this as an example, there are various local authorities. Each one at a small town, in a prescribed area, is responsible for the Bantu administration in that small town. Then one still has the Bantu Affairs Commissioner who is responsible for the district, and then one still has the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner who is responsible for the area, etc. Sir, a fine indication of this was given by hon. members, but specifically because of the system this is not possible.

Hon. members of the Opposition said that all the Minister had to do was simply to amend section 40 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act in order to bring about greater mobility. The Opposition said they were in favour of greater mobility. But I want to tell you, Sir, that this is not possible. The Minister cannot simply amend section 40 and then achieve greater mobility. The Opposition does not realize this. The simple reason is that there are certain aspects incorporated in the entire present-day setup that make it impossible simply to amend section 40, i.e. that each local authority is responsible to its taxpayers. That is why a local authority today is not going to erect housing in its area so that 50 per cent of the people can work in another local authority and it must carry the cost of it. Now I want to tell you that it is going to happen, because your big local authority is the place where the big employers are concentrated, the big building contractors and the big manufacturers, etc.

They are specifically the ones who move from there to the area of the smaller local authority in order to do work there. That is why the bigger local authority will now have to house the people from the small local authority, and they will not be game for that sort of thing. That is why the people, including the employers, who are now concerned with the matter, who know this matter in depth, and not superficially like the United Party that has only read a circular, all agree that this matter does not belong with the local authorities, and as far as employment and other aspects are concerned, with the Bantu Commissioner, but that there should be a central body to make the greater mobility possible.

Now the Opposition says that they object to this administration board that the Minister wants to inaugurate. But this board, which is going to be appointed by the Minister, is going to be appointed on the basis of two considerations, as expressly provided in the Bill. The first is the people’s knowledge of Bantu affairs and the second is their interest in a specific commodity, agriculture or industry or whatever. And now I want to allege that this is not a new principle. We have several such statutory bodies in South Africa that assist with the implementation of policy. I can list you the Group Areas Board, the Land Bank Board and the school boards. They are all statutory bodies, but this specifically gives the public, the electorate that has a specific interest in the matter, the opportunity of assisting the Government in the implementation of that policy.

I now want to go further, Sir, and I want to tell you that a local authority is not elected on the grounds of these considerations, for this specialized and specific matter. It can happen that on a local authority one has no person with an interest in Bantu labour, except perhaps the Bantu doing housework. But one can find a situation in which no person on that local authority has any interest whatsoever in or knowledge of industry, commerce and every other aspect. Therefore I find it only logical that this principle, which has successfully been introduced in other spheres, should specifically be introduced here by the Deputy Minister, and that he can make use of such a statutory body to assist the authorities in the implementation of what is their duty, because it is specifically those people with a personal interest who are in a position to make a positive contribution when this policy is implemented. This would not have been the case if the Minister did not inaugurate such a statutory body.

Sir, I want to mention to you another very important consideration which is of particular importance to me as a representative of a platteland constituency, particularly from the point of view of the Bantu. I want to say that the smaller local authority in the platteland cannot afford to keep an engineer. In other words, when your Bantu area is laid out that local authority does not have the services of an engineer. But when this larger control board, which is going to serve a large area, exists, it will be economically justifiable for this board to employ an engineer and to furnish all the residential areas in that area with the services of an expert.

There is yet another consideration, i.e. that concerning the traffic of Bantu. In a constituency such as that of Lichtenburg, where we border on the homeland, only a few miles from the Bantu townships, it is not possible at present for a small local authority to establish its Bantu labourers in the homelands and transport them from there by bus, because they are too few in number. The numbers in respect of that small local authority are so few that those Bantu cannot even obtain a high school. Since a board is now going to administer that area and work with large numbers within that area, it can become possible and economically feasible for that board to establish the transport and to house those people in a larger township so that they can also be provided with the other amenities, such as school facilities, which they cannot obtain now.

Apart from this there is yet another big advantage for the Bantu in this, i.e. the question of the right of residence or the qualification he acquires in terms of section 10, which will not fall away now when he goes from one area to another to work there. The motivation, which the hon. the Minister furnished to the effect that this matter is also of importance to the Bantu, is therefore of the utmost consequence. I want to go as far as to say that when the hon. member for Kensington, who has just spoken, said that there should be greater stability in respect of the Bantu working in the urban areas, he displayed the greatest ignorance I have ever come across. The hon. member does not know the Bantu family as it really is. He thinks a Bantu family is like a White family, consisting of a husband, a wife and a few children that form an individual unit. The Bantu family is not like that at all. It forms a portion of a large whole in its social context. It is not only a question of a husband, a wife and a few children. It is an entire family and an entire tribal institution that exercises authority over the children and that helps to carry authority.

Scientists who have carried out careful research in South Africa indicate indisputably that the urbanization of the Bantu has an extremely detrimental effect on the Bantu family because the social context was wrenched out of alignment and because the Bantu could not yet adapt himself to that. Hon. members opposite joke about the fact that labourers are already being transported in certain areas from the homelands, a situation that is going to increase to an ever greater extent in the future. They do not realize that this measure is in the interests of the Bantu family. If they were to consult scientific research they would see that the ratio of illegitimate children in the urban areas and in the homelands, as well as the incidence of crime, indicates that where the Bantu family is in its tribal context and where there is greater authority, this has a beneficial effect by comparison with the urban development of the Bantu, which the Bantu has not yet been able to make a part of himself and to which he has not yet been able to adapt. I just want to quote an example of what scientists have to say. Mr. J. F. Eloff of the University of Pretoria states (translation)—

He states further—

Hon. members opposite referred to the question of the cost involved in transporting labourers from the homelands to employment opportunities. I want to tell them that the distances they mentioned are altogether off the mark. I am certain that more than 50 per cent of the labourers who are found in the Transvaal at present live nearer than 50 miles from a homeland. Hon. members may consult the geographic situation of the large centres where employment opportunities are, and they will see that they are nearer than 50 miles from the homelands. The hon. members have been sewn up in a cobweb. They are 50 years behind the times, because they do not know that today it is possible to transport those people by bus at cheaper than half a cent per passenger mile when one has large numbers of them. They do not know of those things that are happening. They are not aware of the fact that it is happening elsewhere in the world, and that people are conveyed for distances of between 100 and 120 miles to their jobs. Then they come along here and make jokes!

Where?

It is the practice in Japan. It is the practice in that country, Japan, which the hon. members are so fond of holding up to us as an example. There workers are transported over those great distances. This indicates to me that this Opposition is living in another world and that they do not know what is going on. They come along to this House and speak of planning, efficiency and other concepts, but with them it only remains a matter of concepts, and just as in the case of individualism among the Bantu they have not yet made this a part of themselves. That is why they are in the process of disintegrating.

I want to mention another important matter to hon. members, i.e. that in this Bill which the Minister has now placed before us, four new points are incorporated. The first is the administration area, the second the administration board, the third the greater mobility of the Bantu and the fourth is the greater efficiency that is envisaged. Now the Opposition has said that they accept the greater mobility, but they are opposed to the board and to the area. I think we have indicated to them that it is impossible to obtain greater mobility without this measure relating to a greater area and an administration board. Now only one thing remains, and that is that this Opposition, as I have summed them up, are also afraid of efficiency. One must examine their history and then one can see what happened in their time. Then one can understand why they would start trembling when a Minister comes along with an efficient measure. In their time such a thing was out of the question. I now want to tell hon. members that when I read Mr. Tighy’s speech many things became clear to me. [Interjections.] The first of these is that those young United Party members sitting there at the back, such as the young hon. member for Turffontein, who just made the interjections …

How old are you?

No, I am much older than you are. I now want to tell that hon. member that when Mr. Tighy made his speech the hon. member had not been born yet. At that stage I at least knew already that it was a disgrace to be a United Party member. Those hon. United Party young members have not had the privilege of seeing a United Party Government in action, and they would not be able to believe that things could be as they indeed were. All they have to go on is their belief in what the other old hon. members on their side tell them. That is the only way of explaining why they can be United Party members. I want to tell hon. members that if they were to know what South Africa looked like when the United Party was in power, they could not possibly be members of that party any longer. The problem of the young people, who are already going to constitute more than 50 per cent of the electorate in the next election, is that they must think abstractly in order to know what the result will be if a United Party were to come into power. It is unthinkable that this could happen, and I was surprised when I read these things. For me it also clarified the problem with which the young voters are struggling today. In respect of the matter now being dealt with in this legislation I want to quote what Mr. Tighy said about how it looked when the United Party was governing. On 6th March, 1945, column 2894 of Hansard, Mr. Tighy said the following:

I just want to add that this is a United Party member speaking here and not a Nationalist, speaking at a time when the United Party Government was in power. He is speaking to his Minister. He continues:

Can hon. members believe it? Can hon. members believe that a United Party member must stand up in this House of Assembly while his Government is in power in order to tell his Minister that conditions in this country are so desperate that Whites and non-Whites are living together in the same building? That is why I say that those young hon. members sitting there at the back could not be members of the United Party if only they knew how things would be under a United Party Government.

I want to conclude by saying that I, who represent a platteland constituency, regard this measure as a very welcome one. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister could have waited any longer in respect of this measure. These hon. members referred to it and said that not only must the Natives not be believed if they say that the legislation is good, but also the employer, who does it under false pretences. I now want to tell hon. members that I, who am engaged in agriculture, can today give the assurance that the agricultural unions have also accepted this legislation. As far as the agricultural unions are concerned I reject the accusation of the hon. member for Transkei to the effect that it was accepted for motives other than the mere fact that it is good for agriculture and for the agricultural labourers.

For the hon. the Minister’s consideration I should like to tell him that I see that here in clause 5 (1) it is provided that after the first meeting of the board is held a meeting shall be held each month. I can now imagine that there could possibly be a month in which there are insufficient activities from which to draw up an agenda for a meeting. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether in the Committee Stage he will not consider introducing an amendment which would make it non-compulsory for a meeting to be held each month. This can be done by the insertion of the words “unless the Minister otherwise directs” after the word “monthly”. This means that a meeting will not be held if the Minister so directs. Then the board does not need to hold a meeting.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat referred here scornfully to the young United Party members on this side of the House. Now I want to tell him straight away that I admit that I had not yet reached political awareness when the United Party was in power. [Interjections.]

Order!

I do not find it strange that the young people … [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to pay attention when I say “Order”, and I want to ask them not to continue with all their interjections.

Mr. Speaker, I do not find it strange that young South Africa is beginning to find this Government out. They were bluffed during this period and that is why I do not find it strange that the majorities in constituencies such as that of the hon. member for Lichtenburg have declined sharply. I ascribe this to the young people who voted for our party there.

This Bill now before the House must be seen in the overall pattern. This is a pattern which is divorced from the traditional approach and is closer to the fragmentation philosophy of this Government. When one regards this legislation more closely two radically different objects are apparent. Firstly there is the relaxation and greater mobility of labour in larger areas, and secondly the take-over of the traditional control and administration of the urban Bantu, at present being dealt with by our local authorities, by the Department of Bantu Administration.

But the hon. member for Brakpan—I am sorry that he is not here—came and cast still further light on this matter for us. He approached this legislation on a twofold basis. He says firstly that it makes possible the greater mobility of labour and secondly that it creates an opportunity for the Government to send the Bantu back to the homelands. To that argument I made an interjection. By implication he kept harping all the time on the fact that the industrialists of South Africa accepted this legislation. I said to him: “Tell us if the industrialists accept your second statement”. His reply was: “It does not matter to me what the industrialists accept—I am the policymaker of this country and that is the policy of this Government.” I nevertheless think that commerce and industry should take note of this, because apparently they themselves and all these bodies who want the greater mobility of labour in South Africa, did not see this object in the way that hon. member put it. The question now arises as to whether in the future this Government will reject any consultation with people that are going to be affected by this kind of legislation.

Whom do you want to consult?

The industrialists. It appears so obvious that the hon. the Minister and his Deputy Minister, with their greed for power, must have been very concerned about and careful with the drawing up of this legislation. I want to put it like this: In order to achieve the second drastic object, i.e. the take-over of the control and administration of the urban Bantu by this Department and, as the hon. member for Brakpan said, the sending back of the Bantu to the homelands, a proper pretext had to be found to keep their actual objects from the public. This smokescreen is specifically raised by means of the first object, i.e. the relaxation and greater mobility of labour in a larger area or territory. A statement of the South African Institute of Race Relations, dated 29th December, 1970, summed it up nicely in the following words—

Now I must tell the hon. the Minister, or even his controversial Deputy who is piloting this legislation through, that their trick was reasonably successful. Seen from the point of view of the industrialist, the employer, the various bodies of trade and industry and the Bantu himself, the first object, this relaxation and greater mobility of labour, had a hypnotic effect.

Order! I think the hon. member must put forward a new argument, because I have been hearing this all afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Johannesburg North spoke of the fact that no consultation took place between this Department and the urban Bantu. Now, in an article in the Sunday Times, written by Langa Skosana, it was very interesting to read the following under the heading “Africans welcome proposed take-over—but …—

This is clear proof that this hunger of the Bantu, the desire on the part of these people for greater labour freedom, is of paramount importance. But incidentally, what is also illuminating is the fear on the part of the urban Bantu that separate development will be strictly applied. We frequently hear from the Government how the Bantu of South Africa supposedly support this policy— perhaps the Matanzimas, but definitely not the urban Bantu.

This is clear proof of how drastically necessary this measure has long been. So absolutely necessary was this concession, and this more sympathetic approach to the greater mobility of the Bantu in the labour field, that it blinded the Bantu to all the other complications connected with this legislation. This is obvious proof of how out of touch this Government is with the problems of South Africa, or else the hon. the Minister and his Deputy have pulled a fast one on those concerned! With this relaxation of the labour force, in which not only the Bantu are involved and will benefit, but the entire labour pattern, particularly on the Witwatersrand, we have no bone to pick with the Government. On the contrary, we must congratulate them on this small candle that burst into flame in their pitch darkness of verkramptheid and stagnation, on this concession in their granitelike pattern of thought.

But this specific legislation is not necessary for that. Why is the Minister abusing this long-delayed, important and necessary measure to extend his dictatorial powers in respect of all the other measures? Appeals have already been made for years to have the Witwatersrand declared one labour area, in order thereby to accommodate both management and labour in a period of economic and industrial growth and expansion, particularly where many bodies are establishing branches in the areas of nearby local authorities, or even where bodies are moving in toto from one local authority, say Johannesburg, to another local authority, for example Isando. Instead of teaching new, raw, unskilled labour from scratch, industrialists can now take their existing skilled labour with them without any trouble. The answer to making this concession, or to easing this problem of making labour more mobile, does not lie in the fact that it should be used as a cloak for other dictatorial powers—this is obvious in the mere amendment of section 40 of the existing Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act (Act No. 25 of 1945). The hon. members for Langlaagte and Lichtenburg said that the amendment of this section is not the answer, that its compass is not wide enough. The hon. member for Langlaagte speaks of “we in Johannesburg”. Throughout the years there have been pleas for the administration of the Bantu in those areas on a regional basis. But this was not advocated under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I believe that these people thought more in terms of co-ordinating committees of local authorities.

I also foresee problems as far as other matters are concerned. The Minister will have absolute right to discretion in the appointment of the so-called Bantu Affairs administration Boards, which will be exclusively appointed by him. These boards obtain jurisdiction over areas that are also exclusively determined by the Minister. It is obvious that the Minister will have to appoint Nationalist yes-men who, at the snap of his finger, will merely have to implement Government policy. He also has the right, to use the English expression, to “hire and fire” without any explanation. What does this mean? “The hard and fast rule must be obeyed”; otherwise you are out.

I should just like to refer to the appointment of Senators in the Other Place, with specific reference to the Coloured population in South Africa.

That has nothing to do with this Bill.

It is precisely the same thing in principle which I expect will happen if such powers are going to be granted to this hon. Minister.

If the hon. member wants to speak about the Coloured people he must do so on another occasion. The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, may I just say that I want to use this example of how the hon. the Minister can abuse this provision. However, if it is your decision that I may not do so, I shall not.

You cannot even discuss the appointment of the Senate here.

Then I shall not use it. But what about the so-called consultation that must take place between these boards and the local authorities? Suppose that no agreement is reached as such. What position would then develop? We shall find ourselves in a position where the elected municipal councils can come up squarely against the appointed Bantu Administration Board of the hon. the Minister. Who is going to be the suffering party if the so-called consultations come to nought? Not the appointed board, not the elected council and not the Minister, but the urban Bantu is going to be the suffering party, because it is his fate that is being put at stake. It can be asked why one is providing this friction and these clashes between the Minister’s appointed board and the electorate’s chosen council? There is only one reason for this, and in this connection I specifically want to refer to Johannesburg. The reason is the difference in approach to the urban Bantu. At present we have there the more sympathetic, more humane attitude of the local authorities, but with this legislation we get once more, in this field, that inaccessible “hard and fast rule” strictly applied as dictated by this hon. Minister and his Deputy.

I want to quote further from the Sunday Times article of Langa Skosana. He said—

We all remember the Msini case. I do not want to elaborate on this, but it specifically proves this point I now want to make, i.e. that Government policy is being placed before people’s feelings. We have here a typical example of what I almost want to call the hypocrisy of the Government. I do not know whether I may use the word, and if I may not then I withdraw it.

Order! Hon. members must not say, “I almost want to say hypocrisy” and by so doing say it. Hon. members must not use those words.

I was not sure whether I am allowed to use the words.

The hon. member may not use those words.

Then I withdraw them.

The “almost” poor member.

I am just very glad that I was not a pupil when that hon. Minister was a teacher. The hon. the Deputy Minister issued a statement about the Msini case, and these were his words—

I almost want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he does not go red behind the ears at having made such a statement. I say this because this legislation is specifically going to clash with the family life of the Bantu in the urban areas of South Africa. However demurely this statement was made, I cannot accept and believe it. The actions of this Government most certainly do not endorse it.

In the Sunday Times Langa Skosana writes further that—

Did the hon. the Minister consult with the Bantu concerned and find out how they feel about this matter? This does not appear to be the case when one hears of a certain Mr. T. G. Makhaya, to whom the same article in the Sunday Times also refers. There it is stated—

We are entering a situation in which the humanity with which local authorities are implementing this administration will be replaced by the application of the fixed rules and regulations of the impractical, impracticable and unacceptable policy of this Government. It is an unequivocal fact, certainly in the case of the Johannesburg City Council, that the administration of Bantu affairs is implemented with the greatest measure of sympathy and humanity as against the harsh, strict and keep-to-the-rules-and-regulations action of the implementation of Government policy by Government administrators.

I want to say this, apart from the fact that local authorities in many respects only act as agents of the Department of Bantu Administration. Any person and I also include the hon. member for Langlaagte, who is familiar with the conditions and with the administration of Soweto by the Johannesburg City Council, as against the administration of Meadowlands and Diepkloof by the Bantu Resettlement Board appointed by this Government, cannot but be impressed by the difference in the provision of facilities and the attitude of the officials concerned. The network of recreation and welfare facilities provided in Soweto is absolutely outstanding and cannot be compared with the poor conditions in Meadowlands and Diepkloof. The hon. member for Langlaagte says that he has travelled through Meadowlands and Diepkloof. However, he does not tell us whether he has also travelled through Soweto. He dare not say it, because then he is going to find himself between the devil and the deep blue sea. He cannot then be honest about that. It is a fact that Meadowlands does not have a single social worker at its disposal.

We already heard about that yesterday.

The question has already been put, but the point is that we do not receive a reply about that from hon. members opposite. In Meadowlands and Diepkloof there is no medical visitor or mother and baby clinic, while the Johannesburg City Council supplements the medical services of the Province at a cost of about R1 million per year. Officials of the Johannesburg non-White division provided, on their own initiative, for the establishment of a registered welfare fund to look after the Bantu for whom there is insufficient provision in the existing assistance. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Fauresmith should rather try to stand for the leadership of the National Party in the Free State.

When one comes to housing, one can speak here until the sun comes up. There are 11,000 sub-economic housing units in Soweto, as against no comparable accommodation in Meadowlands and Diepkloof. While the standard of single quarters in Soweto is at least planned, conditions in Meadowlands and Diepkloof are shocking and inhumane.

Have you been there?

I have, but that hon. member has never been there.

The hon. the Deputy Minister is so fond of speaking about an “explosive” situation that would supposedly develop under United Party policy. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that if there is ever an explosive situation it is specifically developing under this Government, particularly in respect of the poor housing conditions in many cases in Bantu urban areas. I want to issue a warning today to the hon. the Minister, his Deputy and the Government, that in the urban areas—and I say this with all due respect and with the utmost confidence and the best of dispositions—a recklessness and a dangerous state of mind is developing which we have never had before in this country among the Bantu. Those hon. Ministers who sit so comfortably cosseted in their warm houses costing R60,000 and R70,000 must very seriously take note of this fact.

Then the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development comes along with this legislation to take the administration out of these more humane and sympathetic hands. At present there are about 12,000 families in Soweto alone who are without housing. They live with friends and family in unparallelled pokiness. Each year matters get worse.

Why did your town council not make provision?

It is expected that at the end of each additional year a further 2000 families will be without houses. These are squatter conditions developing under this Government’s policy. Why do these problems arise? What is more, these problems will be much worse if the Government takes over this administration. The shortages are the result of this government’s approach, i.e. that these thousands of homeless people must not obtain houses because one day—that is the promise the Government makes to them—they will go back to their homelands. We know how the Johannesburg City Council is struggling with pleas to the hon. the Minister for development. What then would happen if the local authorities are switched out? This Government is creating the most explosive situation of all times. These facilities and conditions in Soweto of a standard on a par with the best Johannesburg can manage, can only be maintained with a subsidy from the Johannesburg City Council to the Bantu Revenue Fund. This year this amount was in the region of R1.25 million.

The question now arises as to whether the Government with its Bantu boards will allow similar subsidies, because conditions and facilities can only maintain this level with subsidies from bodies other than the Bantu Revenue Fund.

You are now reading too fast.

I wish that hon. member would keep quiet so that I can deliver my speech.

Therefore, if the Government as such will not, according to conclusions drawn in the Press, allocate further subsidies when they takeover this administration, conditions and facilities will, of necessity, have to deteriorate.

What comes to light clearly is that the Government, as far as administration is concerned, wants to link these urban Bantu up fully to the Bantu homelands. What bothers me is that this legislation expressly provides for the payment of whatever funds the Bantu administration boards have to their credit to the Bantu trust funds, with the permission of the Minister.

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

No, unfortunately I only have seven minutes left.

Castles in the air have to be built in the Bantu homelands for people in the White areas who have never seen the inside of a Bantu homeland, who never want to see it or never will see it. Money that ought to provide facilities and improvements for these people who are ending their days in the White area, must be applied in an area they will never get to.

Please read a little more slowly—we cannot keep up with you.

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member has a lot of time to read my speech in Hansard. Then he can give me an answer on Monday.

Mr. Speaker, if there has ever been political trickery then it is specifically with these provisions. We are dealing here with a group of people living in the White area and working in the White area, people who will end their days in the White area and who maintain a very low standard of living and, instead of working towards raising their standard of living and improving living conditions I foresee only the deterioration of these aspects with this kind of legislation. Their own contribution towards improving themselves is not being used in the places where they are, but rather in this Government’s dream world where they ought to be.

When we give warning that the Government is creating an explosive situation, we are scolded for being instigators and for being irresponsible. But does this Government not realize what it is playing with? Does it not realize that it is dealing with people? This legislation is deviating from the establishment of undisrupted family life. It leads away from the right to own land and one’s own house where the urbanized Bantu is situated and lives, and away from the self-administration in urban areas by the Bantu. This Government is unleashing uncontrollable monsters which will not be its problem, but will become the problem of future generations. Those good relationships that were built up in a place like Soweto between the White local authorities and the inhabitants, are being razed to the ground by this legislation.

When one advocates these matters, i. e. good relationships, which ought merely to be a natural matter of course, then we are told that we want to integrate. When we speak of the fundamental importance of building up a stable middle class Bantu in the cities and when we plead for better conditions, for family life and land ownership for the Bantu who qualify and live in their own area, then we hear a stream of arguments to the effect that we want to open the sluices. After all, it is the United Party that established influx control, is responsible for section 10 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act and daily advocates the improvement of the Bantu’s standard of living.

I now want to come back to the hon. member for Lichtenburg who referred to the Bantu family that cannot be compared to Western families. Development is taking place daily. As these people are admitted to Christianity they are adapting themselves increasingly to Western customs. For example, take the question of more than one wife. Those who have been admitted to Christianity have only one wife, because any Christian accepts that practice. There is also the accepted fact that the mineworker traditionally comes to work in South Africa without his family, and that the majority of those Bantu are foreigners.

But I now want to put a question to hon. members on that side of the House who are shouting at us all day long that we want to throw open the sluices. They must tell me what this Government proposes to do with the thousands of Bantu families in permanent residence in Bantu residential areas within the White areas of South Africa? [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, we tried to listen to the dramatic reading which the hon. member for Turffontein gave here. It was full of all kinds of cleverness and was pre-eminently a virulent discourse. That lecture of his contained so many impudent, presumptuous assertions. And let me simply add that it embodied ignorance. That a member of that calibre should come along here and boast, and time and again try to create the impression that he is the self-appointed leader of the youth of South Africa, is ridiculous as far as this side of the House is concerned. In a dramatic and clever way he speaks of a “snap of the fingers” and of “pulling a fast one”. He reminds me of someone on whom a fast one has been pulled. Mr. Speaker, we are not prepared to accept it. The youth of South Africa are not prepared to accept it.

Where do you hear that? Do you then have the support of the young people? [Interjections.]

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