Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we opposed the Second Reading of this Bill, pointing out that we were against, in particular, five clauses of this many-principled Bill. Unfortunately, nothing has happened in the Committee Stage to make us change our minds. This Bill can be called a deprivation Bill because it deprives people of rights. Admittedly, it empowers the Government to establish high courts for the Bantu homelands, but other than that it gives nothing to the people concerned.

The protection which was given to the Africans living in scheduled areas or on their own property in released areas, or Black spots, is now being denied them. They have enjoyed the right of being able to object to an order for removal or withdrawal—these are the words used in the Act—from their homes to other areas. They had the knowledge that they could object, and if they objected their cases could be put to Parliament. The fathers of the land and Trust Act which was passed in 1936 and upon which members opposite place so much importance today, thought it just and proper to give the Bantu an assurance that they would not easily and without just cause be removed from their places of residence by promising them that if they were ordered to move and they refused to do so, the supreme authority in the land, namely Parliament, would inquire into the justice or otherwise of their refusal to comply. This provision was no doubt inserted because the Bantu at that time were being limited in the areas where they could reside. They were being limited to scheduled and released areas, without knowing exactly where these boundaries would be. Now the Government will, after this Act is amended by the passing of this Bill, be entitled to get Parliament’s approval for a removal of the Bantu from their residences to other areas before the order to move is issued upon them by the State President. In other words, before they have an opportunity of agreeing or refusing to obey the order, this Parliament can order them to move. This will mean that Parliament will not necessarily know the attitude of the people concerned when it approves the order. All we may have before us will be the department’s interpretation of the attitude and the feelings of the tribes concerned, and that is not good enough.

If they are prepared to move, then of course there is no need for the Minister to come to Parliament because he will have no problem. We can only assume therefore that the Government is expecting to have problems and difficulties in the consolidation of the Reserves. We must assume that they expect their plans to be unacceptable to the Africans who will have to be removed. We have heard in the debates on this measure that there may be hundreds of thousands of Bantu who will be ordered to move in one province alone.

One of the Government speakers suggested that the United Party Opposition could delay the Government’s plans by opposing any of the orders. He said this would mean adding possibly another 20 years on to the Government’s development plans. When we challenged members opposite to give us any instance where this Opposition, the United Party, had opposed unnecessarily any movement, not only were they not able to give an instance where we had adopted delaying tactics in objecting to such a removal, but in fact they could not give us any instance at all where we had objected to the Government’s removal of Africans. I say therefore that past experience does not justify this amendment. As I have said before, not only has no valid reason been given for it, but no reason at all has been given. In justifying the removals the Deputy Minister said on the 12th February—

Sir, I stress the words “onwettige samedromming”. This legislation is not necessary to move people who are living there illegally. The Minister has other means of getting rid of illegal concentrations of Africans, and therefore the reason he gave in his Second Reading speech is, I submit, not valid.

The Deputy Minister’s reasoning was that consultation with the Bantu authorities was now being provided for, and that no further protection was therefore needed. They would be consulted before they were ordered to move. Sir, it was pointed out that consultation would take place only in regard to the conditions of removal, and not in regard to the removal itself. Consultation would not take place on whether they would be moved or not. But even if they were to be consulted on their removal and as to where they should be moved—and not only as to the conditions of removal—I submit that this would not be enough. Consultation does not mean agreement, and we were unimpressed with that argument advanced by the hon. the Minister.

Another clause with which we are in disagreement is clause 4, which amends the provisions relating to the approval of leases of Trust land to non-Bantu. All we asked for, Sir, was that in future such leases should be tabled in this House so that members of Parliament can see what is happening to such land. We repeat that Trust land means that the land is being held in trust for the Bantu by the trustee to ensure that the Bantu themselves have the benefit of the land. After all, Sir, the Bantu is limited in the areas where he can occupy land, and therefore the meagre acreage set aside for him must be used by him, and if the trustee wishes to let the land to anybody else, this Parliament which provides the land must be told why it is not going to a Bantu but to a non-Bantu. We do not ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to abide by the law as it is at present, in terms of which he must first get the approval of Parliament before he can let land to anybody else; all we say is that we require him to lay the information with regard to the leases on the Table of the House so that we, Parliament as trustee, can know what is happening to that land.

Sir, this Bill applies to the Transkei as well as to other Bantu legislative bodies and as I have said, the reasons given by the Minister as to the necessity of this measure are unsatisfactory. There is a provision dealing with Bantu education, which takes away the control of university education from the Transkei and from other Bantu homelands. It has in fact not yet been granted to them; all the Act says at present is that they can be given control of university education.

How can it be taken away if they have never had it?

As the Act stands now, they can be given control over university education. Now they are being deprived of the right to control university education. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself says that it is not impossible that they will be given control of university education. They may be given control over university education, but it will mean then that he will have to come back to Parliament to amend the law to read as it reads today. We are told by the hon. the Minister that this deprivation of power is being done for legal purposes only, but the Deputy Minister has told us that it is being done “omdat daar sekere probleme in verband daarmee is”. We asked him what those problems were and he could not tell us. Sir, this Deputy Minister is going to be known as a reticent Minister because he does not talk. He makes statements, and when we ask him to substantiate them he does not say anything; he just sits there and says that he is not going to talk unnecessarily.

It really is a strange politician who does not want to talk.

He is afraid he might contradict himself.

When the Transkei Constitution Act and the Bantu Homelands Act were passed, the legislative assemblies were given the power to control education. We have had it publicly from the equivalent of the Minister of Education in KwaZulu that that authority wants to control its university education, and in fact he tells us why he wants to control it. Sir, the passing of the Transkei Constitution and the Bantu Homelands Constitution Acts were matters of honour. We promised the Bantu certain powers. Now we are taking away their control over these important matters, and we ask the Government why, when we have given something to the Bantu, we now take it away from him, without any valid reason being given for it. We are not even told that there has been proper consultation. In fact, we understand from interjections by the hon. the Minister that there was no consultation on this issue. I ask him to tell us at this late stage whether there was any consultation with the Transkei or any other Bantu leader on this question of university education. I was under the impression that there was a provision in the Transkei Constitution Act that we could not amend that Act or deprive the Legislative Assembly of any power without its consent. Unfortunately I have not been able to find it in the Act, but I was under the impression that some such statement was made at the time and that these people could rely on the fact that once they were given some authority we would not take it away from them without consulting them and without their consent. Sir, I say that this Government, proceeding as it does now with these amendments, is acting arrogantly. It is proceeding like a steamroller on its way. But we must remember, Sir, that it will not be able to do this much longer. The African leaders of the various tribes are becoming more belligerent and more outspoken, and it seems from statements that they are getting together and discussing the things that they want and how far they are prepared to go. Sir, we will have to give more respect to their rights and to the promises that we made to them.

Finally, Sir, I want to say that we did not oppose clause 14, i.e. the clause which deals with the zoning of villages in areas which may become released areas because we think that there should be some power of this kind for orderly development, but, Sir, I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to learn from the difficulties that they have experienced in the Transkei where this zoning was first applied. After the zoning of the villages in the Transkei, or at the same time, a proclamation was issued—Proclamation 336 of 1965—which set out the conditions under which the zoning could take place. We talk about zoning, but it really means that certain areas in the villages are reserved for Black occupation; that means that they become equivalent to released areas where a Black man can buy land amongst the White people and in fact live there, and that has happened in the Transkei. But, Sir, in section 4 of the proclamation referred to it is provided that no person other than a Transkeian citizen, i.e. a Black man in the Transkei, the Government of the Transkei, the Trust or the Bantu Investment Corporation or the Xhosa Development Corporation shall acquire land or an interest in land in a reserved area without the approval of the Minister. That means that once a portion of a village is reserved for Black occupation, a White owner of land cannot let that land to another White person or sell it to another White person without the permission of the Minister. That means that before he sells, he has to make application to Pretoria. Sir, that is a long, drawn-out affair.

I am not thinking so much of selling land, but I am thinking more of cases where they want to let their land. Where a White man owns a bit of land he can let it to another White man if he gets the approval of the Minister. I have the case of an estate where a doctor in the town—and doctors are becoming very scarce in the Transkei—wanted to hire or to buy a bit of land which had been left in an estate and which had a house on it which was suitable for him to use as a surgery. The application was put to the magistrate and the magistrate recommended it. The municipality recommended it; the Department of the Interior in the Transkei recommended it; then it went to Pretoria, and Pretoria turned it down.

Sir, provision is made in that proclamation that different authorities must be consulted. They all recommended the sale but Pretoria turned it down.

Then there is section 7 which reads—

In other words, if I own a property in an area which has now become reserved and I use it as an attorney as an office, I cannot let it to a doctor to use as a surgery, because it would then be used for a different purpose. I have to get the consent of the Secretary for Bantu Administration. I know of an instance of a gentleman who owned a property in a zoned area. He had a panel-beating business in a modem building on it. There was an additional room which had been passed for factory purposes by the board, and he wanted to use it for printing purposes. He saw a good chance of making a lot of money out of it. The town clerk and the mayor of the town agreed and the Department of the Interior agreed, but Pretoria insisted that a formal application had to be made before they could give permission. In this particular case the owner only had one day in which to make his application because the printing machinery had to be moved, and it was turned down by Pretoria. Now I say it is quite wrong for Pretoria to intervene as they do and to exercise power over the areas where they are out of contact. It just delays matters. Once this legislation is passed dealing with zoning all these troubles experienced in the Transkei can come into being again in other areas. I appeal to the Minister to see to it that there is better administration and that we do not have unnecessary delays.

Sir, the objectionable features in this Bill far outweigh the acceptable clauses. By rejecting this Bill, Parliament will not be hamstringing the Government. It will not be preventing it from attending to the many pressing problems facing this country. It will not prevent attention being devoted to those problems at all; all it will be doing is to deprive certain people of rights they enjoy at present. We object to the Bill and shall vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support most strongly the hon. member for Transkei in his objection to this Bill and this Reading of it. Before I come to my main objection I want to refer the hon. the Minister to a clause of the Bill which we do not oppose, i.e. clause 16. This is the clause that deals with the appointment of representatives of local authorities to the Bantu affairs administration boards. We do not oppose this clause because we realize the hon. the Deputy Minister’s difficulty. As has been pointed out, the Act as it stands could result in the one case in something like 140 representatives of local authorities having to be appointed to a single administration board and that obviously is not at all practicable.

Another provision is being made that one representative of the local authority in the magisterial district shall be appointed by the Minister. Of course, the Minister can appoint more than one if he wishes. This puts the hon. the Minister in an immensely powerful position in deciding what sort of representation there should be. It could mean, for example, that the representatives of major municipalities could be excluded from these boards. It will, of course, be up to the Minister—and this is what I want to address him about. What we want from the hon. the Deputy Minister now is an undertaking that he will not ignore the major municipalities when making these appointments. Many of these municipalities, and Johannesburg is a case in point, have invested millions of rands in amenities and other services for their African populations, and they have a very direct interest in the future of these people even though the administration is being taken away from them. Sir, the Government of course has a very unfortunate reputation when it comes to making appointments of this sort I need only refer to questions asked by the hon. member for Durban North a few years ago about Government appointments to boards.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. He should not wander so far away from it.

Sir, I am dealing with the Bill. The point I want to make is that we expect the hon. the Deputy Minister not to play political favourites when he makes these appointments. We want these appointments to be made fairly and in the interests of the parties concerned. Furthermore, in making these appointments, I want to say one thing to him. In an area such as Johannesburg, for example, we certainly do not want to see a member of the Nationalist minority in the city council appointed. [Interjections.] That is the sort of thing that we have seen in the past and we certainly do not want to see in the future. I want to ask the hon. gentleman when he replies to the Third Reading debate, to give us an assurance that we are not going to have any monkey business in these appointments.

I want also to deal very briefly with clause 1, which I believe is creating the basis of what might well be a highly explosive measure, one to which we have not really objected but which we must now discuss in the light of its implementation. However strenuously we oppose this, it is quite clear that the Government is adamant to see the provisions of clause 1 applied. A very heavy onus is now going to rest on the hon. the Minister and the Government to ensure that as little in-justice as possible is done because, I suggest, that clause 1 is capable of being applied in a highly unjust manner. It has been explained to us that the provisions of clause 1 are aimed at expediting the enforced movement of large numbers of Africans in the process of consolidating the homelands. This we can quite believe. We believe that many thousands of people are going to be moved. It is likely that they are going to be ordered in a fairly summary fashion to move from their traditional land, land that they have owned and occupied for many generations in most cases. A heavy onus is now going to rest on the Government.

As we know and as has been pointed out, the procedure up to now has been to serve an order on a tribe to move. If the tribe objects, the Minister has been obliged to come to both Houses of Parliament to obtain the approval of Parliament to the move. This has meant in the past that this House and the Other Place have had ample warning of what the issues have been, what the intentions of the Government have been and why it wants to move the tribe. Parliament has been fully briefed in the past, or has been able to be fully briefed, on the reasons for any objections to such moves. In other words, Parliament has been adequately briefed on the whole situation. What will the position now be? It appears as though the Minister wants to be able to come to Parliament with a sort of package deal involving the proposed movement of thousands of people and he wants to ask Parliament to judge immediately and finally on the merits of the move. It is all very well to want to expedite the mass removal of thousands of people; it is quite another thing to ensure that their objections receive the fairest possible hearing. What has become quite apparent is that the protection this Parliament has offered these people, is now being taken away. This brings us to one question, a question we must ask now even though we have objected to this clause entirely: What sort of notice, for instance, does the Government propose to give the people who are being told to move, and what sort of notice are we going to have here in Parliament? Will they be told well in advance and will we be told well in advance? Will we as Parliamentarians be given the sort of notice of the Minister’s intentions and his reasons that will enable us to undertake extensive investigations into the merits of each case? Will we be given a chance and adequate time to listen to the objections of the people involved before we are called on to debate in Parliament? This is the sort of thing that we must now hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister when he replies to this Third Reading debate. It seems to me that what will be required in each case—and I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to say whether he will do this—will be the submission of a comprehensive White Paper setting out in the clearest terms exactly what the Government’s proposals are. Such a White Paper must be made available to us many months before we are called upon to debate this matter. If the Government is not prepared to do this, we shall be forced to suspect its motives; if they come with measures of this kind with undue haste, it will mean one thing and one thing alone, and that is that the people who are directly affected will not have the chance of a fair hearing. Here I want to stress again the fact that we are opposed to this and that we have every right to ask the hon. the Minister how he proposes to apply and to implement clause 1. Then we come to the question of consolidation itself. It is common cause that we on this side of the House have asked the Government year after year to come forward with consolidation proposals. We wanted the boundaries of the homelands to be defined. We have not been the only ones to ask for it, of course. Hon. members on that side of the House, or at least members of their party, have also asked for that, but until now it was to a large extent in vain. Now the Government has announced its intention of placing before us and the country what it intends to be the final boundaries of the homelands. If the Government sticks to its intentions, this will once and for all clear up the question of who will have to move, Whites and Blacks. However, it poses a very important question, which is: When will the people involved be called upon to sell their land for consolidation of the Black areas and on what terms? Is the Government now going to give us assurances which we believe are necessary so that uncertainty will be swept away, that land-owners will be told exactly what buying programme the Government will adopt, or are we going to have repetition after repetition of the uncertainty in the Ciskei and Natal? Or, yet again, are we going to see what has been aptly described as the “creeping paralysis” of the Government with which it buys up isolated bits and fingers of land with the result that the adjoining land or surrounding land drops in value until the owners are only too pleased to sell it cheaply? Our view is that the only fair way in which the Government can now implement its consolidation proposals is to produce a basic minimum time-table to which the Government will be committed. We all know of the problems they have had in the past, and of the excuse year after year for not buying enough land as being that they haven’t had the money. I have heard the excuse Budget after Budget. That is the only way in which land-owners will not lose through having the value of their properties dropping, and that is the assurance I want from the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go over the points that have been made by my colleagues. I want to deal with clause 1, but I do not propose to go on to other clauses. I want to deal with clause 1 from the point of the disturbance which the hon. the Minister must contemplate in social relationships and the general economy, particularly in my own province—I now want to talk about Natal—if the plans for which authority is sought here, are in fact carried out. The hon. the Minister said to me the other day that I had not seen a plan of his proposals. I want to say at once that that was an interjection which proved that the hon. the Deputy Minister was taking powers for the removal of people from areas in respect of which he did not have a plan. The only plan I ever got was the plan given to me by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I have no other plan. If he says I do not have a plan, it means there is another plan somewhere or other in the making and that he does not have it either because it has not been approved. He in fact says it has not been approved. He says it cannot be approved until it comes to Parliament. What I want to say this afternoon is that I am trying to bring Parliament back again into the matters dealing with the administration of Native affairs, of Bantu administration, in this country. As a matter of principle I am totally opposed to the kind of proposals before us in clause 1 of the Bill, which ousts Parliament from the position it has always occupied of being the final determinant in regard to matters affecting the Bantu tribes.

I would like to draw your attention, Sir, for a moment or two to the provisions on page 2, line 13, whereby the Minister, subject to such conditions as he may determine, after he has consulted regarding those conditions with the Bantu Government concerned, may issue an order in respect of “any tribe, portion of a tribe, Bantu community or Bantu”. That is to say, he may issue an order to any tribe, any portion of a tribe, any Bantu community or any individual Bantu. For the purpose of what I want to say now, I want to call those the unprotected Bantu. They can be living on White farms or they can be living in areas which are not owned by the Trust or which are not scheduled areas, or on land owned by the Bantu. They can be living on land owned by Asiatics, by Coloured people or by White people; they can be living on land owned by the Bantu themselves, but which is not in a scheduled Native area, and so forth. They are unprotected. However, with the language which is used in the Bill, the provision covers also the protected Bantu because it says “any tribe”, and “any tribe” covers the Bantu who are in an unprotected area and those in a scheduled or released area or who are on a private farm owned by a Native in a released area. Those living in the scheduled native areas, or in released areas, or on a farm owned by a Native in a released area, I am going to call the protected Bantu, because they are the people who have believed throughout the years since 1936 that the 1936 legislation safe-guarded their future heritage as promised at the time by the then Prime Minister. That is what they were promised! Let me say at once that we on this side of the House uphold the promise made in 1936 by Gen. Hertzog. Let me put an end to the canard at once that we are against the promise made by Gen. Hertzog in 1936; we uphold it. Now, because the amount of land in scheduled Native areas was inadequate for the purpose of the Hertzog promise in 1936, the released areas were provided for so that portion by portion of land in all four provinces could be acquired under the released areas system and brought into the scheduled area until the promise of the late Gen. Hertzog was fulfilled. Those were the protected Bantu. This clause 1 now takes away their protection. In terms of whatever map the hon. the Deputy Minister may bring before the House hereafter, as to the map he has given us there are two million acres of protected land for the Bantu of which they are to be dispossessed in my province. I think the figure is 2 000 004 acres of land in Natal alone, not in South Africa as a whole. With this I think a corresponding 1 960 000 acres of White-owned land, Coloured- and Asiatic-owned land, that is non-Bantu-owned land, is also involved. On the movement of a tribe, on the Minister giving an order in terms of this Bill, which is now having its Third Reading, the tribe will be told where it has to go. We know whence it comes. It will get an order telling it to move from where it is at present. It will be given in that order the place to where it must go. Land must be provided for it, so in the very nature of things you must first get the land clear of the White, Coloured and Asiatic owners so that room is made for the Bantu who are to be moved from the protected area. You get rid of the Whites first and then the Bantu move into the protected area. The hon. the Deputy Minister nods his head.

I have dealt with the protected Bantu and the unprotected Bantu referred to in clause 1(a) and I now want to come to the position of the protected Bantu who are living as a tribe. They are dealt with in the first proviso of the new section 5(l)(b) of the Act, being inserted by clause 1 of the Bill which states: “provided that if a tribe which is resident on land referred to …" That land is the protected land, those are the protected people. If a protected tribe is living on protected land the Minister can give that tribe an order to move. It cannot be held against a tribe until a resolution approving of the withdrawal has been adopted by both Houses of Parliament. That is the law today. If the tribe will not move, you have to come to Parliament for a resolution in regard to the tribe. Now the Minister comes with an amendment which says “unless”, not “until”, a resolution approving of the withdrawal has been adopted by both Houses of Parliament. This clearly presupposes that the Minister can come prior to the fact and can get a resolution through both Houses of Parliament giving him the authority to order a tribe living in a protected area to move to some other area. He treats it worse than he does the people I referred to earlier on. Look at the second proviso: “provided further that any such order made …”, that is an order to move, “made in respect of a portion of a tribe, Bantu community or a Bantu which is still in force after the expiry of a period of 12 months …” has to be laid upon the tables of both Houses of Parliament within 14 days after the expiry of such period if Parliament is in session and if Parliament is not in session, within 14 days of Parliament coming into session. If Parliament then does not pass a resolution, both Houses of Parliament consenting, objecting to that order, then it takes effect, but it does not take effect until then. In the meantime if both Houses of Parliament pass a resolution objecting to that order it is then null and void. The people who are not protected, the portion of a tribe, Bantu community or individual Bantu, are accorded treatment which a tribe does not get which comes from a protected area in respect of which the Minister does not provide for them to have their case laid on the table of the House, because he has had the prior approval of both Houses of Parliament to their removal without specifying to Parliament which tribes are to go, from whence and to where they are to go. There has been no attempt in all fairness and justice to make a case for the Minister having that power conferred upon him at this early stage of these proceedings, the proceeding being to try to bring about what he has called “consolidation of the homelands”. That is what he is pleased to Call it. In the case of KwaZulu, six pieces are concerned. Many good folk, including many organs of the Press, keep referring to five pieces, but there are six pieces at the moment on the plan which came from the Minister’s office. He calls that consolidation. It is not only a misuse of the English language—it is not a use of the English language at all if that is called consolidation. However that may be, there are six pieces. In respect of any of those six pieces the Minister can use those as the areas which will finally be decided upon as the KwaZulu homeland. Bantu from outside those areas have to be brought in. Provision is being made here for the maintenance of the promise made by General Hertzog in the 1936 Act as regards their quota, so that that quota is not exceeded. It is continually kept in balance by the administrative machinery that is provided for here. But, Sir, why treat full tribes who are coming from the protected areas in Natal at the present time, in this cavalier manner, when there is an easier, softer and more humane treatment meted out to those Bantu who are not in tribes, but who are part of a tribe or a community or individual Bantu. Poor as it is, they get softer and more sympathetic treatment. Under these circumstances, I say: It must be my duty as a Parliamentarian to say that I am going to fight to keep Parliament in the picture in regard to the administration of Bantu affairs where the movement of Bantu is concerned. What would we say in regard to this movement in respect of any other section of the people? We have already voiced our disapproval in regard to the movement of small numbers of Bantu. We shall continue to do so unless they are adequately and properly treated and until we are assured here in Parliament that proper provision is made for them in the new place to which they are sent regarding water, food, sanitation, roads, employment reasonably close at hand, and all those matters. That is what we are here for, in my opinion—to look into those matters. That is one of the duties of Parliament, handed down to us by our forefathers, who looked upon this question of our treatment of and relations with the Bantu as being one of the most essential duties that Parliament could perform. Now we are being asked in advance, without any details whatsoever, to give the Minister a blank cheque in regard to the removal of tribes. Let me repeat, Sir: The number of Bantu, in my opinion, from that two million acres, is something short of 400 000 men, women and children in one province. I wonder whether the Government considers for one moment what kind of socio-economic upheaval they are going to create, not only for the Bantu who are being moved under these circumstances, but for the Whites, the Coloureds and Indians who are living alongside them as well. My hon. friend, the member for Zululand, said—I think it was yesterday, that we do not have a town of any size whatever in Natal that is not within five miles of a scheduled Bantu area. We are not like the Cape. Down here in Cape Town under the shadow of Table Mountain we can talk amiably about the Transkei a thousand miles away; but that is not the case in Natal, where within five miles of each town we have the scheduled areas where the Bantu are living. Durban has a common boundary with a scheduled Bantu area. This is something which strikes to the root of the living, the being and existence of the Bantu, the friendly co-existence and co-operation that have been built up over the generations. Some of the tribes that have to be moved have been there since before the days of Chaka. They believe that the 1936 legislation, in terms of the White man’s promise and the White man’s pledge, sanctified their land and that they were safe there and that they and their children after them would be able to live out their lives there. That is to be destroyed now by a Minister who says: “For the sake of administrative speed I want to have the power to move these tribes to and fro hereafter according to a plan which I am not yet prepared to show you. When the time comes I shall bring it along and it will then be a fait accompli.” Mr. Speaker, we must, on moral grounds, on grounds of expediency, on grounds of wisdom, on grounds of statesmanship and to protect the powers of Parliament, oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this matter has now been discussed very thoroughly from various sides. I want to begin at the first clause and I want to analyse and elucidate these arguments to some extent, as far as the application of this legislation is concerned. The first thing I want to mention with regard to clause 1 is that the right of appeal is in fact vested in a tribe only and not in everyone, Evidently hon. members opposite did not study the legislation very well. This I want to make very clear. As far as this whole question of the possible moving of Bantu, of Bantu communities or Bantu tribes is concerned, I wish to give this House the assurance, firstly, that negotiations do take place among officials and that the people are informed. The tribes are approached personally. We do not act precipitately. We have been dealing with these people for years, and our officials are acquainted with these matters; they have been dealing with the Bantu of this country for years. Therefore it is nonsense to adopt the point of view that we are going to move these people precipitately and without proper consultation. To this I should like to add that if no progress is made with the negotiations with the tribe itself among the officials, we enter into negotiations with the Bantu Government concerned. In fact, negotiations with that Government may commence before any negotiations have been conducted with the tribe. I have already mentioned that this does happen. In other words, thorough discussions are held with these people before any movement takes place. Moreover, I should like to add that there is a great deal of thorough preparation. The hon. member for South Coast said that Coloureds, Indians, Whites and anyone who might be on that land, must be removed. That is so; but now I may tell you that the whole question of consolidation is involved in this and I am very glad to hear, from the respected member for South Coast, that the United Party supports it. I see the hon. member for Houghton is shaking her head; last year they did not support it. They had so many reasons for not supporting it; they mentioned six different reasons here and I really wish to express my appreciation of the fact that we have now had a clear statement of their policy through the mouth of the hon. member for South Coast. I trust that as soon as plans have been submitted for discussion in this House, there will be proper co-operation so that this land may in fact be acquired.

Another aspect of the matter is the following: The affairs of these people who have to move, are, in fact, discussed here; what is being proposed is simply in a different way of discussing them. It is not a question of there being no discussion. When those plans are introduced, it will be indicated which tribes must be moved. Then the members will have sufficient time for discussing the principle as a whole, and the problems which they foresee. They will form part of a Select Committee charged with submitting a workable and a viable plan to Parliament. The matter will also be referred to a Sessional Committee of the Senate. In other words, it should not be suggested, firstly, that the Bantu, the various peoples, will not be consulted, and, secondly, that this Parliament will not have the opportunity of going into the matter. The only difference is that there will now be prior discussion by Parliament, and the difference is also in respect of tribes only. The tribes alone had the right to appeal; I want to make this very clear once again.

Will the Select Committee dealing with this matter be able to call Bantu witnesses to come and give evidence in regard to the plan?

Sir, now the hon. member wishes to bring in other matters and complicate the whole argument unnecessarily. I can see no reason for involving these people. The position is that we have reached the stage where we have authorities which have Government status in the various homelands and I really fail to see why we should have to come back to the White Parliament each time about matters which we have already placed in their hands and about which they are consulted. I think that if we should do any such thing as the hon. member for South Coast has just suggested here, it would be a disparagement of the homelands …

I asked you a question; I did not make a statement.

Well, the answer is “no”.

Why?

For the reasons which I have just given. Sir, I do not think that it is necessary for us to elaborate on this matter. Sir, the moving of large numbers of people is not an easy task. It is not a task which the Government and the Department would undertake if it were possible to avoid it, but in this country we must think in terms of a long-term solution of our problems in order to achieve goodwill and to eliminate points of friction. It is very clear that attention must be devoted to the matter. It is true up to a point that there will be disruption, but in the majority of these Bantu communities; particularly among the smaller groups, where there are large concentrations of people, conditions are such that the areas have to be replanned and the people moved in any event, and if one has to replan within an area where they are living, then naturally things are more difficult for them and for the planners and for those who have to work there. Therefore the moving of Bantu to have them settle in new areas, will contribute towards making it possible to have proper advance planning, to establish towns, to lay on water and to provide all the conveniences, things which are not so easy in those areas where they are living at present. The position is that one often has large concentrations of Bantu peoples and communities at places where adequate supplies of water are not readily available. In such cases these people have to be moved to places where we are in fact able to supply water. Therefore I want to make it very clear that the whole question of planning concerning the establishment of these people must, in any event, receive attention. I may also tell you with regard to agricultural productivity, that if we do not get another pattern of establishment, we shall never have higher productivity as far as these Bantu are concerned. All people who speak in their favour and for their economic development in particular and for their progress, must realize that planning of their areas is necessary, and whether one moves them from one area to another or not, movements within an area will have to occur in any event, and while we are in the process of planning, both things may be done together and at the same time it will be possible to achieve something of great value to the country as a whole.

Sir, I proceed to the next point about which problems have arisen, and that is the question of the leasing of land, in respect of which the Opposition asked for lists to be supplied each year indicating what land had been leased. We on this side cannot accept this because it would involve an unnecessary amount of administrative work for the department. And to that I should like to add: If a piece of land which has been acquired by the Bantu Trust and which is situated within the area of a certain Bantu Government, is leased, this is done in consultation with and after discussions have been held with that Government. Yesterday I had a case where people wanted to lease land in the Tswana area because of the drought; we have bought land and the grazing and the land are not being utilized as yet. The matter was referred directly to the Tswana Government for a final decision in this regard. We also had similar requests a month or two ago. Today I had a request relating to areas in the Ciskei where land had been bought on which the grazing is good and the White people should like to have that grazing. The matter was referred to the Government of the Ciskei. I shall give no final decision in this regard without consultation. Since these people have their own governments, I simply cannot see why we should come back to the White Parliament to have another detailed discussion on the matter. I do not believe the argument of hon. members opposite to be well-founded.

Another matter which was discussed, is the question of service contracts in prescribed areas. I should like to deal with it once more, although it has not been raised here this afternoon. The status quo is simply being maintained, because regulations already exist, and we are amending the Act purely to prevent it from conflicting with the regulations. The same goes for the control of education. The position as it exists today and as it is acknowledged by everyone, is only being laid down in the Act. There is no reason why the matter should be argued any further. In practice there is no change. It is merely a question of placing on the Statute Book that which is happening in practice.

As regards the question of zoning of towns in certain areas, provided for in clause 14, I wish to say to the hon. member for Transkei that we have taken note of problems which have arisen in the Transkei. As regards areas which may now be affected, there is the village of Peddie and I have visited this village personally. The people have already been consulted and we shall co-operate with the people there in bringing the matter to finality. Every now and again it may happen in the course of the whole process that people are inconvenienced. I know delays do occur in the Transkei at times. From the nature of the matter it is not always possible to prevent delays, but I may give him the assurance that I shall do again what I have always done when these things come to my attention, and if delays do occur and they are brought to my attention, I shall go into the matter. But I cannot agree with him that we should say that Pretoria is completely out of the picture. It is the Trust which provides that money and a White Paper was submitted to Parliament which approved the basis on which this money should be used. It has all been investigated very closely and it is our responsibility to ensure that irresponsible spending does not take place and that good order in such a town is not disrupted. I want to say here that I think that there is a tendency of wanting to accelerate too much the process of making these villages more Black, and that businessmen in such a village who wish to leave might in fact be rendering that village a disservice by wishing to leave too soon; because a service is being rendered to the community which in many instances cannot readily be maintained at the same standard by Black dealers who take over from them, and in my opinion this causes disruption and shortcomings in the process.

Mr. Speaker, these are the matters which were raised today. One hon. member mentioned here today that people would not be moved without their permission. Well, that we cannot accept.

Who said that?

I think it was mentioned by the hon. member for Kensington that a move should take place with approval.

With Parliament’s approval.

No, he said it should take place not only in consultation with the people, but also with the approval of those people. The hon. member for Durban Point is not present at the moment, but I think he, too, said so yesterday. I can tell you that if we were to adopt that point of view, we would, of course, get nowhere. We cannot go along with that. The hon. member for Kensington went on to refer to the larger municipalities under clause 16, which must not be ignored, and asked us not to appoint Nationalists for the Johannesburg Municipality. Now, according to the law of averages, two-thirds of the voters vote for the National Party and two-thirds of the good people come from the ranks of the National Party, and ultimately it will perhaps be 90% of the good people. It is therefore in the nature of things that more Nationalists will be appointed. Therefore I cannot tell the hon. member that Nationalists will not be appointed, but the matter will be considered very thoroughly on its merits. But I do not think that this idea that a large municipality such as Johannesburg would be by-passed completely, is something that will happen easily. If Johannesburg has such useless people that the Minister does not see his way clear to consider them, then it is naturally not his fault; but I cannot think that they will make such useless suggestions that the Minister will say he really does not have the courage to appoint people out of their ranks, those recommended by them. In any event, I wish to set the mind of the hon. member at ease by saying that the interests of the large communities and the municipality of Johannesburg in whose area many thousands of Bantu are employed, will of course be carefully considered so that they may be represented on these committees.

I wish to conclude with these few thoughts. I think that as far as the practical application of this legislation is concerned, it has been put very clearly that there may be bottle-necks. However, I should like to give this House the assurance that I as well as the Minister will handle the execution of a very difficult task with much sympathy. It is not even necessary to give this assurance on behalf of the Minister, because he has been in office for a long time and he knows the problems and he listens to problems from the side of the Whites as well as the non-Whites with much patience and dedication.

Question put and the House divided:

AYES—84: Aucamp. P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fourie. A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan. E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney. H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

That is the point the hon. the Minister stated very clearly at the time of the Second Reading debate, and since the hon. gentleman himself is now coming forward with an amendment, I want to say that we accept that amendment and it will therefore not be necessary for us, on this side of House, to also move an amendment on that relevant point.

I wonder, however, whether the hon. the Minister would not consider the following amendment that I want to move. I therefore move—

The reasons why we are moving this amendment are, in the first place, because we are glad that nurseries will not all be treated alike. As the hon. the Minister’s amendment reads at present, they will not all have to pay at least R100. It can now be much less. We realize that there are a large number of small nurseries, and we would like to retain the competitive element when it comes to the provision of vegetation, shrubs, trees and plants that are grown by these people. We also realize that there are some nurseries that are tremendously large and have a tremendous turnover. In that case it is, too, only right that they pay more than the small nurseryman does. We are prepared to help the hon. the Minister in this respect so that he can still obtain a good registration fee from the larger nurseries and can simultaneously grant protection to the smaller nurseries. That is the only reason why we are presenting this amendment to the hon. the Minister for his consideration. That is why I am moving it. We should like the hon. Minister’s reply to this.

Mr. Chairman, I am not disinclined to accept the amendment, but in fairness I would be glad if the hon. member would give me the opportunity of just first discussing the wording, etc. with the legal advisers and the department. As a result of his initial motion during the Second Reading, that “not less than R100” should be substituted, we came along with the amendment of “not more than R100”. In other words, it is now from naught to R100. In my view this also accommodates his amendment. In practice things sometimes work differently. There are nurserymen, for example, who grow ornamental shrubs, fruit trees and vines. I know a nurseryman with a tremendously large concern that has a turnover of R2 million to R3 million. He is a person who already has to pay R100. However, there are also people who only grow vines and do not even sell them under their own name. They sell them to a nurseryman. I do not think they fall under our scrutiny and I do not believe they will pay anything. When I have discussed the hon. member s amendment with my people, I shall consider it and move it in the Senate if it is acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the hon. the Minister says that he will take this matter up in the Senate after it has been examined by his legal advisers and so on. I do want to point out that, as I see the Bill before us, there is no power there to differentiate. Unless the Secretary or the Minister is given the specific power to differentiate, differentiation cannot be made in regard to the cost of the licence. In other words, once the sum has been decided upon as the amount to be paid for the licence for a nursery, all nurserymen must pay that licence unless, as I have said, there is provision in the Bill itself which permits the authority to differentiate between one class, one form, one kind, one area and another, as the case may be. If the hon. the Minister will go into that aspect of it, I think he will find that specific provision for the power to differentiate must be made in the Bill itself. Then he can move an amendment in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I think if the hon. members for Newton Park and South Coast had read clause 2, they would have been convinced of the fact that the Secretary would, indeed, have the power to determine how much the registration fee should be. The provision here is very clear: “Annually register the nursery with the Secretary in the manner and at the time and subject to any condition prescribed.” I believe there is sufficient provision in the Bill to fix this amount, in effect, even if the Minister’s clause is passed.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of the hon. the Minister’s reply, I want to say that we appreciate what he has said, i.e. that he will consider it and discuss the matter with his legal advisers, and that if there is a possibility that something like this can be implemented, he will move it in the Other Place. In the light of that I am quite prepared, with the permission of the Committee, to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment proposed by Mr. D. M. Streicher, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Agriculture agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, this clause provides—

I specifically want to speak about a plant, and not about an “exotic animal or other article resulting from the exercise of any power under this Act or any regulation”. In nurseries there are some plants, particularly the rarest kinds which could, if they are tampered with by an inspector who knows little of this matter, have their root system and seed so detrimentally affected that that plant could shrivel up and die. I just wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us to what extent that inspector is going to be competent to judge properly whether a plant should be inspected. The surruria florida plants usually look sickly on the surface. Elsewhere in the Bill I see that an inspector may also be a policeman or a customs officer, but I wonder if such a person would have that botanical knowledge to be able to identify these specific rare kinds of plants that are grown in the small nurseries and to make sure that the inspection will not do harm to the nurserymen, something which is very possible as far as these rare plants are concerned. I should just have liked to have this information from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member may rest assured that we do not carry out inspections with the object of exterminating plants; our inspections are carried out so that we may direct our efforts at certain diseases such as root blight, which can be clearly seen on the surface, or burrowing eel worm, stuff that is smuggled in and is found in nurseries. The inspector is a qualified person. If a plant has a wilted appearance by nature, he is not simply going to dig it out. He is a knowledgeable person. In such a year as this, in which we want to extend our green heritage, we do not plan to decrease the number of trees; we plan on the contrary to increase the number, but with healthy trees. I therefore think the hon. member does not need to be concerned. The nurseryman works in very close co-operation with these inspectors, and he is also concerned that his farm or premises should not be contaminated. We therefore have the closest co-operation there. As far as that is concerned, we have not yet had any problems in the past.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise the question of the translation of the word “voetganger” in the Afrikaans text, which remains “voetganger” in the English text. There is some doubt as to whether that is in fact the correct use of the word, whether the word should not be in the English text “hopper”. There was some suggestion that it might be “pedestrian”, but, of course, that is quite wrong. If the hon. the Minister looks in his biology books, he will see that it was referred to as a “hopper”. It still is a “hopper” and I hope that it will be recognized as such.

Mr. Chairman, we sent a person this morning to Stellenbosch to investigate this matter.

Why to Stellenbosch?

We know of a person there who made a study of fancy words, and so on. The person we sent, came back with the information that one cannot say “hopper” in this case. A hopper is “enige insek wat spring, insluitende sprinkane”. But it is not a true description of a “voetganger”. It is not a “pedestrian” either. A “pedestrian” is a human being. He gave me a long explanation. He said that those people, experts in language questions, said that I must please tell the hon. member: “We are satisfied. We can come to a compromise. We will keep on—and he was very serious—as Afrikaans-speaking people, to address the Chair as “Speaker”, provided you address this thing as a “voetganger”. We do not have a word for it in English. He said that since 1911 in our agriculture Acts the word “voetganger” has been used in the English version. He felt that I must make an appeal to the hon. member. He is completely reasonable in trying to find the right word. But let us assume for the future that the word “voetganger” is the correct word to describe this thing as we describe the Speaker as “Speaker”, and not anything else.

Mr. Chairman, let us take the technical aspect of the matter first. If one looks at the Groot Afrikaanse Woordeboek under the term “voetganger”, you will see that it is translated as “hopper”, as “a wingless locust”, and that is precisely what it is. Like many others in this House, I can recall locusts and hoppers from my earliest recollection, particularly in the middle ’thirties, when part of the population of this country was employed on locust work of some kind or another. I have never in English language usage, until I read this Bill yesterday, heard the term “voetganger” used to describe a hopper. I have only heard one term ever used in the whole of my existence, and that is the term “hopper”. It is a commonly accepted English description of locusts before they reach the flying stage, and that is what the hon. gentleman wishes to describe. I assure him, from my experience of this country, which is almost as long as his, that there is only one word for a wingless locust, and that is “a hopper”.

Mr. Chairman, they showed me the Agricultural Pests Act of 1957, and here is a phrase reading “material for the destruction of voetgangers”. It has been used, as I said, since 1911 in our statutes. In various Acts you will find the word “voetganger”. As far as entomologists are concerned a “hopper” is the ordinary garden locust that cannot in truth fly, using its wings only as stabilizers. That is a hopper. They gave me a full explanation. I still feel that if the hon. member will be satisfied, we can alter this word to “hopper” in the Senate, but he must give me an opportunity to bring to him personally more facts in this connection. I do, however, feel that it is a good gesture and that by swopping words the two language groups are coming closer together. I think this is a good solution! I should like to co-operate with the hon. member to see if we cannot find more words of this nature so that we can have a more balanced language!

Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to hop along with the Minister on this issue. I do not think it is a matter of great importance, but I would like to follow his suggestion that we take another look at the situation so that, if necessary, we can introduce the correct word when the Bill is before the Senate.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, I again want to raise the question of inspectors. According to this clause an inspector may “without any obligation to pay compensation inspect any plant on any land or premises … and remove any plant therefrom, and ascertain by the exposing of roots or the removal of bark or branches or the cutting of fruit or flowers … whether there exists on such land or premises any insect or plant disease”. Sir, in this country we have enough of inspectors, and according to this clause such an inspector has a very great deal of power. I want to ask the Minister that such inspectors should take this action at nurseries only if a reasonable suspicion exists that such insects or plant diseases are present. It is interesting that in the definitions an insect is defined, for the purposes of this Bill as “any invertebrate member of the animal kingdom (irrespective of the stage of its development) with reference to which the Minister has by notice in the Gazette declared the provisions of this Act to be applicable”. But there are insects, these invertebrate animals, that grow up in certain protea flowers. Those flowers are then exported, and only when the aircraft flies over the tropics, where it gets warmer, do the insects creep out. When these flowers then arrive in a place like Hamburg they must be destroyed because of the insects. How can such an inspector who is not a botanist or an entomologist—he may be a customs officer or a policeman—come to a patch of proteas and know that that insect, which is prohibited by Government Notice, is in fact inside the protea without cutting the flower open? It takes such a flower 18 months to open from the bud stage. In order to determine whether such insects are present, the flower must then be damaged. If the inspector must look at the plant’s roots, he must open it up and in the case of these rare protea plants, once they are opened and the sun shines on them, they are destroyed. I therefore want to ask that these inspectors should exercise the necessary discretion when they are dealing with these rare plants. I am referring here, in particular, to the smaller nurseries which preserve these plants for our country. I want to ask that they should not act in an authoritarian manner and cause destruction. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to insert the following words: “If a reasonable suspicion exists that such insects or plant diseases are present.”

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Yesterday when we discussed this Bill at the Second Reading, I raised this question of the withdrawal of land for certain uses. I raised particularly the question of withdrawing stock from pastoral land. It was not quite clear to me from the hon. the Deputy Minister’s answer in this connection whether it will in future be possible for a stock farmer, where he is prepared to withdraw such land from grazing, to receive compensation for that land when he voluntarily withdraws such land from grazing, because the following clause does make provision for the Department of Soil Conservation to set aside certain moneys to reimburse any landowner who is prepared to have a certain piece of land withdrawn from use for the purpose of restoring that land to its original state.

It is not the intention, with this amendment, to carry on with the stock withdrawal scheme. In fact, it is simply an amendment of the existing Act, and the position remains as it was in terms of the Soil Conservation Act. It is not the intention to introduce compensation when an instruction is served for the withdrawal of this land. Whilst this was originally a temporary measure, we have now made it a permanent one for practical and theoretical reasons, but the position really remains as it has been, without effecting any change in the Act. It remains as we have had it in the past.

With no compensation?

No.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

During the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, when the principle was debated, I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us why he required this particular clause and why he wanted to insert this in the Act. Sir, this is a clause of far-reaching consequences. It is a clause which raises a presumption which a farmer or a land-owner will have to rebut in the event of any charge being laid against him in terms of the Soil Conservation Act, any charge which may be laid against him, and not only a charge which may be laid against him regarding the use of land. The presumption which is raised is that in any prosecution for an offence under this Act, it shall be deemed that this Act is applicable to the land upon which, or in respect of which such offence is alleged to have been committed unless the contrary is proved; which means that unless the farmer himself can prove that either the Act itself does not apply or that the direction in terms of section 3 of the Act does not apply. Now, what is a direction in terms of section 3? No, let me just deal with the easy one first. Let me deal with section 26.

In terms of section 26 of the Act, the Act applies to all land within the Republic of South Africa except land which is within a urban area, land which is owned by the South African Bantu Trust, and land of which the ownership is vested in the Minister of Coloured Affairs in trust for a Coloured person. Surely it is a simple matter for the Department of Agriculture at any time in any prosecution to ascertain whether the Act in any way applies to a particular farm, because all they have to find out is, firstly, whether it is within the area of jurisdiction of a local authority, which surely is the simplest of matters, by reference to the local authority concerned; or, secondly, by reference to the Department of Bantu Administration with its efficient staff, where that department should at any time be able to tell the Department of Agriculture whether or not a particular farm is or is not within a scheduled Bantu area; or the Department of Coloured Affairs, who should from their records once again be able to ascertain easily whether this farm is within that area which is exempted. So I cannot accept the answer of the hon. the Minister in reply to the Second Reading yesterday in regard to this particular provision, when he says that he is asking for this provision merely to facilitate the administration of his department because, as he put it, his officials are wasting an awful lot of time ascertaining whether the Act does in fact apply to a particular property.

Sir, I cannot accept that. There is another reason for this provision he is asking for and I think I find it within the provisions of section 3 of the Act. Section 3 is the section which empowers the Minister to declare directions applicable with reference to a particular farm or to a particular region. Section 3 lays down that the Minister may direct that a farmer must curtail his cultivation of land, his laying out of land, the destruction or the non-destruction of vegetation, the drainage of vleis and the control of the run-off and the drainage of rivers. He also uses this section to curtail the use of grazing and to direct the withdrawal of veld from grazing, the use of areas reserved as water-catchment areas, the burning of veld, the resting and the utilization of pasturage, the number of stock which a farmer may carry on his farm, the prevention of erosion and the control and the extinguishing of veld and other fires. I quote paragraph (n) of subsection (1) of section 3:

In other words, in terms of this section the Minister has extremely wide powers to direct any farmer or any group of farmers to do something or not to do something. In terms of this section the Minister may direct the farmer or the group of farmers either by notice in the Gazette or by written notice to that owner or to the occupier of the land concerned, to do something or not to do something. Surely it must be a simple matter for that hon. Minister’s department to ascertain whether in fact a direction has been issued and whether in fact it pertains to a particular farm either by reference to their records in the Government Gazette or to their records of directions which are issued by letter. Why does the hon. the Minister want to place the onus on the farmer to prove that no such direction was in fact issued? From the list that I have read out this afternoon, it must be clear that this covers every facet of life of the farmer today. Every facet of the Soil Conservation Act is controlled by this section empowering the Minister to direct either by notice in the Gazette or by a letter. Why must it in a prosecution be incumbent upon the farmer to prove that in fact the Minister did not issue such a direction? I want to ask another question: How does he do so? How many of our farmers in South Africa receive the Government Gazette? How many of them know what is promulgated by means of the Government Gazette every week?

I believe that it is an impossibility for a farmer to prove that in fact a direction does not apply to his farm. I believe that it is a simple matter for that hon. Deputy Minister’s department to prove that it does in fact apply to the land in question. I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to withdraw this provision. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the farming community of South Africa. I cannot find any valid reason why it should be in the Bill. I asked him during the Second Reading debate to give us reasons why he needed these powers. He failed to give us those in his reply. I am going to resume my seat now and I hope he will give us valid reasons why he needs these powers, otherwise we, the Opposition, will have to reconsider our attitude towards this particular clause.

Mr. Chairman, this hon. member is one of those hon. members who are quick to talk about “red tape”. I am afraid that if we were to accept his proposal and leave the Act as it is now, we would be facilitating this very position the hon. member does not want. This entire amendment is essential, on the advice of the law advisers, since they have experienced some problems because it is a long drawn-out process to prove that a person is not excluded in terms of this Act, viz. that his land does not form part of an urban area or Bantu Trust land or rural Coloured land. This is the crux of the matter, whilst in the case of the farmer it would probably not be so difficult to prove that the land belongs to him. He has his title-deed and similar documents. As a matter of fact, this facilitates the entire procedure.

I accept that.

Because there are problems in court—and I said so yesterday and the hon. member is aware of that—I feel that this is a practical measure; he ought to appreciate this better than I. I want to say quite honestly that I feel this amendment to be essential because we are in fact eliminating in this way a whole lot of red tape.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House want to cooperate with the hon. the Minister when it comes to dealing with an important Bill like this, but we are not entirely satisfied. In regard to the kind of case where the Minister has problems at this stage, he is talking in very vague terms. He has not satisfied us in what kind of situation this can well happen. We can quite understand that in the case of the ordinary farmer it is easy to identify the boundary and which farms and which pieces of land are subject to the provisions of the Soil Conservation Act. If that is so, it is not necessary to bring in this clause. There must be some cases where it is difficult to establish where in fact the boundary is, or whether in fact a particular piece of ground is subject or not to the Soil Conservation Act. There must be a measure of doubt in the farmer’s mind and there may also be doubt in the opinion of the State whether in fact this is land that is subjected to the Act. We want a clearer explanation of the kind of land that is involved to create the situation where the Minister wants to take very wide powers.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. the Minister is going to give us some explanation because significantly this amendment is inserted after section 26 of the Act, the section which deals with the application of the Act. Section 26 of the principal Act says:

This Act shall apply to all land—

1. (a) which is not situated in an urban area;
2. (b) of which the ownership is not in terms of the Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act No. 18 of 1936), vested in the South African Bantu Trust…
3. (c) to which no provision of the Rural Coloured Areas Act, 1963 (Act No. 24 of 1963), applies …

It would therefore seem that it is a fairly simple matter to decide whether the land, in the first place, is not in an urban area, is not owned by the Bantu Trust or is not subject to the provisions of the Rural Coloured Areas Act. That is the first point. It obviously has nothing to do with the situation of the land; there is no problem as to that, but as to the application of the Act it is different. I think the observation made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is very relevant so far as the application of the Act to the land is concerned. My hon. friend is quite right. He referred to section 3, which says:

All the various matters which the Minister feels should be done in respect of that matter. My hon. friend asks quite rightly: “How is a farmer to know that that was in the Gazette if it was in a Gazette?” We are all presumed to know the law, but how is he going to prove that it is not in the Gazette? I wonder whether there is in every magisterial district at the seat of the court where he would be charged—because it is an offence in terms of section 21 of this Act if he does not comply with it—a collection of the Government Gazettes which he could have a look at. Let me say that for a lawyer to find anything like this is in itself a tremendous burden. There is a recorded case, and a judgment that one can look up, which started in a magistrate’s court, which went through on appeal to the Supreme Court and which eventually went to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. Despite the fact that there were silks on both sides of the case and that all the work that could possibly be done was done; despite the fact that they had all the best lawyers and the best minds in the legal world, despite the fact that they all put their minds to work to deal with the problem which related to a regulation that was made and was published in the Gazette. It was only when they got to the Appellate Division, goodness knows how many hours and how many thousands of rand later, that it was discovered that, in fact, the regulation they had been talking and arguing about all the time, had, in fact, been amended in a Gazette of some nine years before. That is the sort of problem you are dealing with. If one wants to know whether or not there was a notice in the Gazette the best, the quickest and only place to go to is to the Government department concerned if you have the facility to do so and can get there. Only that department would have a proper index or record. There are publications such as Windex which are produced to enable practitioners to get around the Gazette more easily, which indicate to them where they can find various Government Notices, proclamations and regulations which have been published under various empowering sections. Even those are very often wrong; even those are not always up to date. As I say, the only person who could know what is in the Gazette, is the Government department concerned. Surely, having these facilities, it is for the State to say that one is doing things in contravention of a direction which has been published in the Government Gazette on such and such a date. Then it is an easy matter to get the Gazette of that date. By the same token, if the notice was a written notice to the owner or occupier, then surely the hon. the Minister knows whether he sent the letter, whether he delivered the notice? Only he is in a position to prove that properly. If he cannot prove that he, in fact, sent it or wrote it, that it was sent through the post or by registered post and was signed for, then what is the person to do who is told he is disobeying a direction? He goes into the witness-box and says that he never received such a notice or he goes into the witness-box and says that it was not in the Gazette. How can he possibly say honestly that it is not in the Gazette: “I swear on my honour that it is not in the Gazette?” I do not know anyone in South Africa who would go into the witness-box and swear under oath that a particular Government notice was not in any of the Gazettes that have been published over the last years. Sir, this is really the situation and therefore I cannot see how the hon. the Minister can, in fact, have a problem.

Mr. Chairman, I can fully appreciate this matter; when one argues this matter from a legal point of view considerable problems may arise. However, I want to ask hon. members whether this is really going to be so important—when it concerns the protection of the soil of South Africa—if a minor mistake of this nature were to occur, while it is a question of measures that have to be taken? As a matter of fact, cases of this nature only occur on the boundaries of those areas that are excluded, i.e. municipalities, Bantu Trust land and Coloured areas. In other words, if a mistake were to be made, it would at least be all to the good because we would be protecting the soil. I want to say in all honesty that I, as an ordinary and practical farmer, feel that this is in fact a measure which is being accepted for the purpose of promoting conservation. I am sorry, but this advice has been given by the legal profession and here we are being criticized by the legal profession. We ordinary farmers find ourselves between these two millstones. In the meantime we should like to protect the soil of South Africa, and I am sure that hon. members will view this matter in its correct perspective.

Mr. Chairman, I must express my disappointment over the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I am serious when I say this because really and truly as was so clearly put by the hon. member for Durban North, if it is impossible for the Department of Agriculture, a department of State of the Republic of South Africa to prove in a court of law that the Act does in fact apply to a particular farm, because it does not fall within an urban local authority area, or not within a Bantu Trust area, or not within a Coloured-owned area, how can they have the nerve to place the onus on the poor farmer? How can they do that? This is an abrogation of the responsibility of the department, that is all it is. It is a running away from their responsibility. In regard to the direction and the application of section 3, the failure to comply with such a direction constitutes an offence in terms of section 21. For the department to pass this over to—I almost want to say the poor, ignorant farmer, but I cannot say that—the poor farmer is an even worse abrogation of their responsibility. How does someone prove that the notice is not in the Gazette, because that is what the Minister is asking the farmer to prove? As the hon. member for Durban North pointed out, how does he prove that the notice was not published in the Gazette? I believe it is a simple matter for the State to prove that it was in the Gazette, that it was promulgated, but I believe it is an absolute impossibility for any farmer to prove that it was not published in the Gazette, or for any person, anybody or any department of the State to prove that. To hear the hon. the Deputy Minister get up now and say “Look, chaps even if we do make a mistake, this is not going to make any difference”, is incorrect. It is going to make a tremendous difference to the farmer concerned. Where are the tenets of justice to which we subscribe in this country? Must the innocent now be punished? Must the innocent now be punished simply because that Minister and his department do not have the staff or the available resources to find out and to ascertain the facts of which they should be aware? The same applies to the Department of Bantu Administration and the Department of Coloured Affairs. Must the innocent farmer now be punished because of that? No, I am sorry, we in the Opposition must reserve our position in regard to this clause.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—81: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Wyk, A. C; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill I want to deal with this afternoon is not a long one. In fact, it contains only two clauses. The two principles of the Bill are accordingly embodied in clause 1. Through clause 1(a) of the Bill, the scope of section 19bis (1) of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949, is extended. This section deals with the deprivation of South African citizenship. The section grants the Minister of the Interior the power to deprive by order in certain circumstances, inter alia, a South African citizen who is not a minor of his citizenship at the Minister’s discretion. This the Minister can do if he is satisfied—

that such a citizen has made an oath or other declaration of allegiance to any country other than the Republic, or made a declaration renouncing his South African citizenship with intent to accept any other citizenship or nationality; or thirdly, that such a citizen who has also the citizenship or nationality of another country, has performed some voluntary act which, in the opinion of the Minister, indicates that such person has made use of the citizenship or nationality of the other country of which he is also a citizen.

Through clause 1(a) of the Bill it is now being proposed that the scope of section 19bis (1) of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949, be extended to provide that the Minister may deprive a South African citizen who has also the citizenship or nationality of a country other than the Republic, of his South African citizenship if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest that such citizen shall cease to be a South African citizen.

It is well known that the Government strongly condemns illegal dealing in dependence-producing drugs. That the Government regards this matter in a very serious light appears, for example, from the following legal provisions. In terms of the provisions of the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, 1972, the Minister of the Interior may order a person who has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for illegal dealing in or possession of dependence-producing drugs to be removed from the Republic.

The Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act, 1971, contains a similar provision, namely that a person who has been convicted of illegal dealing in dependence-producing drugs and who is regarded by the responsible Minister to be an undesirable inhabitant of the Republic may be removed from the Republic. However, no steps can be taken against these persons in terms of the said legal provisions, i.e., by removing them from the Republic, if they are South African citizens by birth or descent. Steps can only be taken against them if they are aliens, or were aliens and have meanwhile become South African citizens by registration or naturalization. A large number of persons who are guilty of illegal dealing in dependence-producing drugs in particular are aliens or former aliens who subsequently became South African citizens. Among these persons who are guilty of the abuse of drugs there are also South African citizens by birth or descent who also have the citizenship of other countries. Some of these South African citizens have lived abroad for the greater part of their lives. They grew up abroad, went to school there, attended universities there and worked there. These South African citizens, who are totally unacquainted with the traditions and customs in South Africa, commit other serious offences and indulge in other forms of undesirable behaviour over and above drug peddling. When steps are contemplated against these South African citizens they hide behind the fact that they are South African citizens by birth or descent, although they have lived in South Africa for only a short while. The position is then that for all practical purposes these South African citizens are like strangers who grew up outside the Republic. On the contrary, some strangers certainly have a better understanding of the country’s laws and more respect for them than these South African citizens.

While aliens and South African citizens by registration who are convicted of drug peddling can be removed from the Republic, South African citizens by birth or descent who commit similar offences cannot be removed from the Republic. It is in the light of these circumstances that it is deemed necessary that the Minister of the Interior be invested with the necessary power to be able to deprive a South African citizen of this citizenship if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest.

If a South African citizen by birth or descent who has also the citizenship or nationality of another country is convicted of illegal dealing in dependence-producing drugs, the Minister will then have the power to consider depriving him of his South African citizenship. And if such a South African citizen has lost his South African citizenship, it will be possible to consider his removal from the Republic, as in the case of aliens convicted of similar offences. This power is granted to the Minister by the proposed addition by clause 1(a) to section 19bis (1) of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949.

Because it is not proposed by ministerial action under this proposed new measure to render persons who are South African citizens stateless, the measure has been so worded that a South African citizen can only be deprived of his citizenship if he also has the citizenship or nationality of another country. If he has only South African citizenship he cannot be deprived of it, for then he will become a stateless citizen. Therefore, if a South African citizen does not also have the citizenship or nationality of another country, he cannot be deprived of his South African citizenship in terms of this new measure.

†Mr. Speaker, I now turn to the second principle embodied in clause 1(b) of the Bill before the House, namely that the question whether the deprivation of the citizenship of a South African citizen who also holds the citizenship or nationality of another country is or is not in the public interest, shall not be subject to appeal to or review by any court of law. In conjunction with this provision, it is also provided that no person shall be entitled to be furnished with reasons for the Minister’s decision in this regard. Now this is no new principle being introduced into South African legislation. A similar provision is for instance embodied in the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, 1972. This Act, inter alia, provides that the Minister of the Interior may, if he considers it to be in the public interest, order the removal from the Republic of any person who is not a South African citizen. The Act further provides that the Minister’s decision in regard to the question whether the removal of such a person is or is not in the public interest, shall not be subject to appeal to or review by any court of law and no person shall be entitled to be furnished with any reasons for the Minister’s decision.

The reasons advanced at the time for the introduction of this provision into the Admissions of Persons to the Union Regulation Act, 1913, now the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, 1972, equally apply in the case of the Bill now before the House. I shall not dwell on these reasons very long and shall merely summarize them here.

First of all, if these cases have to go to court the Minister will have to be specific in supplying the reasons as to why he considered it to be in the public interest to deprive a person of his South African citizenship.

It follows that if the Minister has to be specific in the reasons he gives for his action in this regard, he will no doubt in most cases have to disclose the sources of his information. I do not have to elaborate just how delicate these sources could be at times and also that it would not be in the public interest to disclose these sources. In fact, to disclose such sources could also endanger the lives of the informants.

Secondly, should the Minister in cases of this nature that come before the courts, not furnish reasons for his decision to deprive a person of his South African citizenship, how, indeed, could he explain and defend his decision in a court of law? Such a course of action in cases of this nature would not be practicable.

In the third instance it should be borne in mind that court cases can become very lengthy affairs. We all know that court procedures have in some cases become protracted for more than a year.

In most of the cases that I have described to hon. members it is of the very essence that action shall be taken against these people quickly and decisively, and that they shall not be allowed to bring forward technical and artificial defences against action contemplated or taken against them. It is also regrettably so that these people in most cases have no qualms about abusing the process of law and that they do not hesitate to do so for no other reason than to continue with their improper conduct, that is, the very conduct that may have forced the Minister to deprive them of their South African citizenship. The activities and conduct of these persons are harmful and prejudicial to the Republic on many grounds. They do not contribute to or promote the general welfare of the Republic—on the contrary they detract therefrom. In the light of these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it should be clear that it is indeed not in the public interest to oblige the Minister by law to disclose the reasons for his action in depriving a person of his South African citizenship or to allow such a person to have recourse to the courts, be it by way of an appeal or an application for a review of his case.

Mr Speaker, I am under no misapprehension regarding the gravity of the powers now taken in the proposed measure before the House. I do, however, wish to give hon. members this assurance that these powers will only be used in exceptional cases and that they will only be used when the desired result cannot be achieved under any other relevant section or in terms of any other law. To this I want to add that in no case will a person be deprived of his South African citizenship unless his case has been carefully considered and the information on which the decision in his case is based, has been carefully checked. This is the procedure followed in the case of persons removed from the Republic where their removal has been considered necessary in the public interest. This same procedure will be followed when considering whether a person should be deprived of his South African citizenship for the reason that it is in the public interest to do so.

*Mr. Speaker, I shall content myself with this short explanation of the two principles embodied in the Bill. However, I want to make one more remark, by way of comparison, about the deprivation of the citizenship of minors. At the start of my speech I explained that in terms of the existing provisions of section 19bis(1) of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949, the Minister of the Interior may in certain cases deprive a person of his South African citizenship for example, if he acquires the citizenship or nationality of another country by some voluntary and formal act other than marriage within the Republic. But in each of these cases the Minister cannot deprive a minor of his South African citizenship. This is a good thing, for in these cases the minor usually needs the authorization of his father or guardian for the action on account of which he can be deprived of his South African citizenship. Minors cannot, after all, be penalized for their actions under such circumstances.

To my mind, however, the position is different in the case of persons whom it will be possible to deprive of their South African citizenship by means of the proposed new addition to the said section \9bis(\) of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949. The position is different, Mr. Speaker, because in many cases the teenagers are the very persons who are guilty of the conduct and activities in respect of which powers are now being taken in the proposed new provisions to be able to act against these teenagers as well. It should be clear that minors cannot, as in the case of the existing provisions of section 19bis(1) of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949, be excluded from the new proposed provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I have now outlined the considerations which forced the Government to submit this legislation to you here today. It was only after the most serious reflection and careful consideration, and after having ascertained that there was no other effective way to combat the undesirable conduct and activities of the persons concerned, that this legislation was decided upon. This legislation emphasizes once again the Government’s conviction that it is its duty to take action in respect of drug peddling and to deal with these evils once and for all.

I consequently trust that hon. members will see their way clear to support the Bill in the light of the circumstances I have explained.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister and, I believe, this House, know full well that we on this side of the House will support all reasonable steps the Government takes to deal with and to combat the menace of the drug pedlar, as we will also support measures reasonably taken to combat acts endangering the security of the country. But the Bill before us this afternoon is not a Bill aimed at achieving those particular ends because the Bill before us gives carte blanche powers to the Minister without any limitation on the circumstances under which these powers can be exercised. For that reason I want to tell the hon. the Minister at the outset, before I deal with the matter any further, that we on this side of the House oppose this measure.

We oppose this measure because first of all it provides for an attachment to the existing section 19bis as it stands at present which is quite out of keeping with the provisions of section 19bis as amended in 1962. We on this side of the House supported the 1962 amendments to section 19bis because under section 19bis as it now stands the deprivation of citizenship can only take place after a defined act has been done by the person who is to be deprived, that is an act defined and circumscribed in the Act itself. Let me explain further what I mean.

In terms of section 19bis as it now stands a person may be deprived of his citizenship by the Minister if at any time by some voluntary and formal act he has acquired the citizenship of another country, if he has made an oath of allegiance or a declaration of allegiance to a country other than South Africa, or if he has made a declaration renouncing his South African citizenship, or, under the present provisions, if he has performed some voluntary act which in the opinion of the Minister indicates that he has made use of the citizenship of another country. But the amendment or the addition which the Minister now proposes has no such restriction as to the circumstances in which these provisions will be applied. There are no precedents, and the only restriction is that the Minister himself must be of the opinion that it is in the public interest that such a person should be deprived of citizenship. We see no reason to depart from the attitude which we adopted in 1962, and that is that the specific grounds which must motivate or justify the actions of the Minister must be stated in the law which we are asked to pass in this House. Sir, citizenship is a fundamental and essential possession of any person and for this very reason we cannot support measures which permit a citizen to be deprived of that valued possession of his by a simple executive act by an hon. Minister of this House, and an act which he performs in camera. We believe and accept that citizenship has and carries with it both privileges and obligations, but those privileges and obligations rest equally not only with persons who have acquired citizenship by birth, but also with those persons whom, in the process of law, we have accepted as citizens of South Africa, and who have become citizens of this country of their adoption. Now, I believe that this Bill violates the sanctity of citizenship because of the form in which these powers are to be given to the Minister.

What does it provide? It provides that a person who is a citizen or a national of another country as well as of the Republic may be deprived of his South African citizenship, whether acquired by birth or by naturalization. He will be deprived of it by the executive action of the Minister if the Minister is satisfied that in his opinion, and his opinion alone, it is in the public interest that this should be done. There is no word whatsoever in this Bill of the factors to be taken into consideration by the hon. the Minister, factors which formed the whole tenor of his speech this afternoon. There is not a word in this Bill regarding drugs. Before the Bill came before this House the Minister was good enough to indicate by way of an interview in Die Burger what he had in mind. May I say in passing that I trust that the White Papers of this department are not to be issued to the Nationalist Party organ in the Cape for publication but rather be laid upon the Table if they are in explanation of Bills. The hon. the Minister gave a long and detailed explanation and it was only when I read in Die Burger of the 7th February what was motivating the Minister, that I realized why he was introducing this Bill. What did the Minister say? In the report in Die Burger he said—

If that is the Minister’s intention, if he needs this power, and I accept that he is stymied, if I may put it in the golfing term, in regard to the question of a South African citizen who has another citizenship at the present moment, then, for heaven’s sake, say so in the Bill—say in the Bill that he wants to have this power to use when he thinks it is desirable that a South African citizen who has a nationality or citizenship of another country and who is convicted in the courts of South Africa of drug peddling, must be deprived of his South African citizenship. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I would not be speaking as long as I am speaking now if the Bill contained such provisions because we would have supported him if he wished to have the power to consider the removal of citizenship after the conviction of a pedlar of drugs in South Africa. But that is not in the Bill. What the Minister wants is a blank cheque to say that if he is of the opinion that it is not in the public interest, a person ceases to be a South African citizen. I am sure that there are many hon. members on the other side of the House who believe it is in the public interest that South African citizens should vote for the Nationalist Party and, conversely, that it is not in the public interest if South African citizens do not vote for the Nationalist party. The hon. the Minister shakes his head; he has told us already that he will be a very reasonable man in applying this measure. He has told us that he will only use it under these particular circumstances.

In which clause is that?

I must remind the hon. the Minister that Ministers change. We have changes of recent vintage in this House and we still do not know whether this hon. Minister is going to tread in the “verligte” footsteps of his predecessor, that we do not quite know; however, we have hopes that that will occur. The question now is not to say that he will give us an assurance. This has gone on since 1910 that Ministers have said in this Parliament that they give us the assurance that a provision will not be used except in certain circumstances, but then a successor arrives and there is a rapid change.

The dead hand of the past!

When I heard the hon. the Minister’s assurances I asked myself: “What manner of man is this who asks me for this blank cheque?” I want to concede that he is a man of ability, a man of enthusiasm and a man of energy, but in which direction will he use these attributes in applying his mind to this particular measure as it is at the present moment? I may be forgiven if for a moment I look over some of the happenings in the last six months; I want to see to whom we are asked to give these powers. I find that in an appropriate “verligte” approach to matters the hon. the Minister made statements which are utterly acceptable and which show a very reasonable approach. One thinks of the statement that the Bantu must not be thought of to be there only to come when the bell rings, and then to disappear into thin air as a very appropriate statement. Suddenly after his victory over his colleagues at the congress of the Transvaal there came a sudden change in the Minister’s attitude. I think he found himself on the wrong side of the net, on the wrong side of the court. He got a little bit too “verlig” and then it was a matter of going the other way. The hon. the Minister then, talking about the actions he would take and on how he would exercise these powers for instance, said to us: “I have my own way of seeing things and of handling situations.” We would like to see the way in which he is going to handle situations dealt with in the measure that this House has to pass. One knows that there were then discussions of the hon. the Minister’s position and he was applauded by none other than the Sunday Times and other papers for being a very moderate gentleman. That was too much and then Rapport came back discussing the “kroonprins van die Nasionale politiek, kragdadige Connie”. I read this, because when I come to think of how these measures will be used, this is what is said, and it is this Minister who asks for these powers:

And he goes on in his “aanvallende rol” in various other departments. We want to know well before he becomes too “aanvallend” in regard to the deprivation of citizenship rights, that the Minister states in the Bill the circumstances in which he will deprive citizens of their citizenship. I have already said to the hon. the Minister, and I want to assure him again, that we on this side of the House agree with him with regard to the problem of dealing with drugs and drug peddling in this country and he will have support from this House as he has had before. The hon. the Minister is aware of it. I believe he must in requesting legislation restrict himself to the necessities of what is essential to be put in a measure of this sort.

Finally, I want to mention shortly certain matters which arise out of the problems of citizenship and nationality. In the short time at my disposal before this matter came before this House I have attempted to find out what the position is and in respect of which class of citizen this Bill would become operative, i.e. a citizen who has South African citizenship, plus the citizenship or the nationality of another country. After a very cursory glance at the provisions, one wonders what countries of origin will be covered by this particular group of persons. I believe, for instance, that a German citizen who wants to take out South African citizenship and who becomes naturalized here, loses all rights so far as his German citizenship is concerned. There is an argument in international law that if he was born in Germany he remains a German national, but not a German citizen. Can that man then be turned out of South Africa and left at large as a German national without being a citizen of any particular country? I believe the same would apply to the United States, to the Netherlands and to other countries. In Australia the position is equally firm and it has even been tightened up so that an Australian citizen who assumes the nationality of another country, as we have under clause 19bis, loses his citizenship of Australia. What group of persons can still be dealt with? Is it a wide enough group that concerns the hon. the Minister? He may have figures in relation to such nationalities but there are problems of that nature which I raise and I think these are matters in regard to which he could enlighten the House.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister—and I do so very sincerely—to reconsider this measure in the light of his address to this House this afternoon and in the light of his statement which appeared in Die Burger, which I take to be a correct report. I want to say to him that he should rather not arouse feelings of uncertainty in the minds of South African citizens as to what circumstances can at some time or other either in this hon. Minister’s mind or in that of his successor, be regarded as justifying a decision that they should be deprived of their citizenship. There are at present 759 applications pending before the hon. the Minister of persons wishing to be naturalized in South Africa. What is it worth, unless they are assured by looking at the laws of this country that: “When I become a South African citizen, I can only be deprived of citizenship under certain specific circumstances, only if I do this, that or the other”. That is, however, not in this Bill. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. I think he has been quite frank with this House this afternoon as to what he needs and if he needs this power to deal with pedlars of drugs under certain circumstances after conviction, then I think he would find that this side of the House will be prepared to look at a measure of that sort in a most reasonable light and that we will give him every assistance so that he can acquire that power. I can quite see the need of that in certain circumstances. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister not to go ahead with the Bill as it stands. I want to ask hon. members opposite whether any of them, if they were sitting in the Opposition benches, would vote for this carte blanche right to be given to a Minister to deprive a South African of his citizenship. I am sure none of them would. Is it then reasonable to expect us on this side of the House to support the hon. the Minister, whatever his protestations might be of his intentions? What is more, I would go further and say that this is bad legislation.

There is the final point in this Bill which other members on this side of the House will deal with, namely the question of access to the courts. This is a vexed matter. I know that in the past, where action has been taken to deprive a person of citizenship, the opposition party, whichever party it has been—whether the Nationalist Party, the Labour Party, the Pact, the United Party or the old Sap-party—has at all times taken up an attitude—and I believe quite justifiably—that the right of the court to review be not eliminated from any legislation which is passed in this House. The hon. the Minister talked of difficulties, secret information and so on, but he himself has said in Die Burger that he only wants to use this power against convicted smugglers, i.e. persons who have been convicted of the offence of peddling. In fact, he goes even further and gives the assurance in the interview with Die Burger that “die verbruikers word nie geraak nie”. In other words, the ordinary drug user is apparently not to be affected according to this interview with Die Burger. He wants this solely for the convicted pedlar, he tells us. Well, let him say so in the Bill. What he is in effect asking is a penalty additional to the penalty which the courts might impose on a pedlar. The hon. the Minister has given us some matters to think about and there may be very good reasons why such a provision may be needed in our law. I can say to the hon. the Minister that I think this should be reconsidered, that he would do well to adapt the law to meet the problem he has and that he should not proceed with this legislation. If, on the other hand, he decides to proceed with it, we on this side of the House will oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point started his speech on a fairly high note. It is a pity that he dragged in the personality of the Minister later on, something that has absolutely nothing to do with this matter. However, the hon. member started on a high note by saying that citizenship was the fundamental right of every person. In this respect I am in full agreement with the hon. member—citizenship is a fundamental right of every person. But this Bill is not concerned with citizenship at all, but has it against dual citizenship. A person who is a South African citizen and does not find it necessary to have duel citizenship, may in terms of the provisions of this measure not be prosecuted by the Minister. Therefore that argument of the hon. member falls away. Secondly, the hon. member said, “This Bill violates the sanctity of citizenship.” In our country we have already had many far-reaching incidents that were concerned with citizenship. One of the incidents which was probably the ugliest and left the deepest marks in our history, the Jameson Raid, was concerned with citizenship. A protracted war was fought, a war which caused a great deal of grief and sorrow; it left many deep feelings behind; all of it because of citizenship. But when a party says that a measure violates the sanctity of citizenship, one would like to take a brief look at the record of that party in respect of citizenship. Now, on our Statute Book I find an Act piloted through by that party in 1942—that is only 31 years ago—Act No. 35 of 1942. Hon. members will be interested to know what that Act provided. At that time those hon. members were by no means interested in the sanctity of citizenship and the fundamental right of every individual to citizenship. In that year those hon. members deprived widows and orphans of their citizenship. Through this Act, Act No. 35 of 1942, those hon. members deprived all minor children and widows of naturalized Germans of their citizenship, irrespective of whether those children had been born in South-West or in South Africa. If one cherishes high ideals it is a good thing, but then one should at least take a look at one’s past as well. What is peculiar about this case is that those children of Germans, naturalized citizens of South-West Africa and minor children born in South Africa, were deprived of their citizenship by that party. What is also peculiar is that those children, who had always had automatic citizenship in Commonwealth countries, were not deprived of their citizenship by England nor by any of the other Commonwealth countries, but here in South Africa, where many of them had been born, they were deprived of their citizenship. When one considers this, it seems as though one really should not talk about this matter in such a sanctimonious manner.

There are a number of fundamental concepts or principles in respect of citizenship which I should like to discuss here in brief. The first fundamental principle in respect of citizenship is that citizenship is a privilege and not a right. One must appreciate that no one has a right to citizenship, but that it is a privilege that can be won by birth, or by descent or by naturalization. Formerly we also had a fourth way of acquiring citizenship, namely the automatic citizenship one acquired if one had been born in one of the Commonwealth countries or in England. Fortunately that has lapsed, for in that way citizenship was made very cheap. Nevertheless, Sir, since citizenship can be acquired reasonably easily, almost automatically, by birth, etc., our people are inclined not to appreciate their citizenship at all times. There are many people who, when they have difficulty in visiting countries all over the world on a South African passport, try to retain also the citizenship of another country so as to facilitate matters for themselves in that way. Certain people may of course be acting in the interests of South Africa, for instance, as regards matters of trade, etc. Those people usually discuss the matter with the department beforehand—so I presume—they act in a bona fide manner and the department is aware of them. But we have, of course, another group of people as well, people whom the Minister mentioned here as an example, i.e. the drug pedlars, who have contacts on the international level with the underworld of the gangsters. It is not so easy to bring those people to book. This is the type of person the Minister has in mind in introducing this Bill. I cannot understand that a decent South African can actually plead for these people, for, Sir, really, no “violation” is taking place here. The Minister may only take steps against the person who has dual citizenship and is abusing it. No right-minded person will implement this measure unless a very thorough investigation has been made. He will only implement it with the greatest measure of discretion. This type of thing is not simply done arbitrarily. The case in question will be investigated very thoroughly, for every person realizes that citizenship once acquired, is a very valuable possession. But, Sir, we must also realize—and this is another fundamental principle in this regard—that citizenship is actually unique and indivisible. If one accepts the citizenship of a country, one is actually entering into a contract with that country, a contract in terms of which one accepts certain obligations, but in terms of which one also receives a set of rights, privileges and benefits from that country. Then one is actually committed to giving all one’s loyalty to that fatherland. If a person comes from abroad and decides to become a South African citizen, he will perhaps wish to retain for a while the citizenship of the other country, which he acquired by virtue of birth, but in due course that person will feel that he accepts this new fatherland and will be prepared to refrain from making use of his previous citizenship. He may retain that citizenship; only he should not use it in a negative manner, he should not use it to the detriment of his new fatherland. It is at this small group of people, these underminers of our morals and our entire existing order that this Bill is aimed. We know those people. We know they cannot be tackled without gloves. They are very subtle and cunning.

Now I come to the second principle, namely that these people do not have access to the courts. If one were to grant them a right of appeal, one would be watering down this Bill altogether; for sometimes it takes months before such an appeal to a court succeeds and finality is reached. Instead of taking swift and effective action against him and getting him out of the country, one would still be allowing him to carry on with his devilish work. But it is also as the Minister said. The Minister may possibly obtain information from abroad—very delicate and confidential information which he cannot disclose to the court for some reason or other, perhaps because he does not want to embarrass his sources. Furthermore, I think this might land the court in a political problem. We do not wish to land our courts in politics. But if the court were in this respect to pass judgment against the Minister’s ruling on a decision taken by the Minister after careful consideration and after going into all the information, without the court having all the information at its disposal because all the information may not be disclosed to it, this would possibly land our courts in a political problem. Therefore I am sorry that the Opposition cannot see its way clear to supporting this Bill. This is a very short Bill, but it is an extremely important measure which merely makes it possible for us to take action against a small group of people who can do our country a great deal of harm.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to follow the hon. member who has just sat down. I do not think he has a very good grip of either this Bill or the question of South African citizenship. When an hon. member can stand up here and say that South African citizenship, for those of us who enjoy it, is a privilege and not a right, then I am not prepared to follow him. I think that is a most extraordinary statement for a member of this House to make. Sir, let us accept, as everybody accepts, the value of South African citizenship, however we may have acquired it. Let us accept that we are privileged to have this right and that other people are privileged to have acquired it. We value it; it is something of immense value. Let us start from there—the value that we all attach to South African citizenship. I go along entirely with what the hon. member for Green Point said. I think his speech was a most admirable one; I congratulate him on it. Sir, I am going to listen with a great deal of interest to the hon. the Minister’s reply, and I hope we will get a very full explanation from him in reply to the questions put to him.

You will get it.

May I say that I hope they will be reasonable replies, Mr. Speaker. I would like to put one or two questions of my own. Firstly, I would like the hon. the Minister, when the time comes, to say whether there is a difference between citizenship and nationality, as referred to in the 33rd line, where reference is made to a person who also has the citizenship or nationality of a country other than the Union, the “Union” being the Republic, of course. The word “Union” appears here because we are here amending old legislation, so I am not raising that point. The fact of the matter is that the term “citizenship or nationality” is used here, which seems to imply that a person could be a citizen but not a national, or that he could have the nationality but not the citizenship of another country.

The concept is interchangeable.

Mr. Speaker, that is the answer to my question, and to that extent it simplifies things so far as we are concerned, because I did not want the case to occur where hereafter a person may be said to have enjoyed a second nationality but not a citizenship, and that because he has the nationality of another country he could be deprived of his South African citizenship. But the Minister has said that the two terms are interchangeable. Sir, this gives me the opportunity then to say this: I sat at the feet of a very prominent lawyer in Natal many, many years ago. Incidentally, he came from Klip River, and therefore was a most admirable man. But he lived in Klip River. He was, as I say, a lawyer and a member of the Executive Committee. He was an old Scotsman who used to talk to us young M.P.C.s from time to time, and I remember his saying to us on more than one occasion: “What you’ve got to remember is that the opinions of the man who is speaking, the opinions of the Government, White Papers and newspapers and the lot, count for nothing; it is the printed word which prevails.” Sir, I say to the hon. the Minister this afternoon that it is not the speech he made here this afternoon that counts, it is not the interview that he gave to Die Burger or any other newspaper, it is not any White Paper which he may give us now or hereafter, it is the printed word in the Bill that we have to deal with, and this says nothing about pedlars or drugs or anything of that kind whatsoever—nothing at all—so we have to rule that out completely. It says nothing about terrorists or terrorism—none of those things. I want to stop here for a moment on this question of terrorists and terrorism because of the wording of the proposed additional subsection (1A) on page 4. In terms of this proposed subsection the decision of the Minister in regard to the question as to whether the deprivation of the citizenship of a person is or is not in the public interest, shall not be subject to appeal or review by any court of law, and no person shall be entitled to be furnished with any reasons for such decision. The hon. the Minister, just now when he was speaking, said it might well be that he would be in difficulties in finding the evidence to put before a court of law to justify the court in finding that he had come, under the circumstances, to a reasonable decision in depriving a person of his South African citizenship. The Minister said just now that there would be cases where, to give that evidence in court, would be to indicate the sources from which the information came, etc., etc. That is a specious argument, Sir. We have dealt in our legislation in this House with far more dangerous situations than even the Minister has indicated here; we have dealt with terrorists and terrorism, and the law provides for the manner of dealing with evidence which may be adduced in respect of such people. And if it can be adduced in our law to deal with people of that kidney then I suggest it can be adduced also with regard to people who may be drug pedlars, if that is in fact the class of person the Minister has in his mind.

Not only drug pedlars.

Ah!

Mr. Speaker, you will remember what I said just now about it being the written word which prevails and not what the Minister says. [Interjections.] Now the Minister says there are other classes of persons.

There may be.

There may be? My point is that not only may it be, but the Minister takes the power to deprive any South African citizen of his citizenship under the circumstances here—and I will come back to them—for any reason which to him seems good, because it cannot be challenged. It does not matter whether it is drug peddling. He may not like the colour of the man’s eyes. It may be that he is too tall or too short, it may be that he has the wrong complexion. It cannot be tested. That is what this Bill says. The Minister must not simply say it is not only drug pedlars, as he said now, and that it may be other people as well. We know that, because it is in the Bill, and that is precisely what we are objecting to. We say that if the Minister is going to take power in regard to such an important matter as depriving a South African citizen of his citizenship, then surely that person is entitled to be told why he has lost his South African citizenship. And in view of the fact that we are supposed to be a country which is continually being exhorted to maintain law and order, should not a citizen have the right to go to the law? The worst that the Minister could say was that we have had cases which have lasted a year before the courts. Sir, is that not amazing? Here is a Minister who says it took the law courts a year to dispense justice and that is a bad reason; that should not be allowed; people should not be allowed to go to court for a year; give me the power and I will soon fix them up; I will kick them out of the country; I am not going to waste the time of the courts; the court might give a decision against me; the man might get a decision in his favour, but fancy wasting a year of our time in South Africa on cases like this! I will kick him out and that will settle the whole thing very quickly. That is what the Minister says. The Minister shakes his head, but what other interpretation is possible? He himself adduced the fact that some cases took 12 months to be settled and then he does not say whether he won the case or not, or whether it went in favour of the appellant. This surely is not the only kind of case in which an aggrieved person can go to the courts; in fact, this is the kind of case in respect of which the Minister says: “I will take care that he cannot go to court.”

There will be a very good reason for that.

What is the reason?

If there is a good reason why a South African citizen cannot go to the courts …

A person with double citizenship.

I will come to double citizenship in a moment.

Not South African citizenship.

Mr. Speaker, what kind of a philosophy are we now having from the hon. the Minister? The hon. the Minister says that if a man has South African citizenship and another citizenship he is not a South African citizen.

No.

That is what he said just a moment ago. He said he is not a South African citizen because he has double citizenship.

I did not say that. I said I could only deal with people with dual citizenship.

No, you did not say that.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry; Hansard has got this down; he said it absolutely clearly. He said that if a person has double citizenship he was not a South African citizen.

I never said that.

That is what he said. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

You will get your chance to speak, my friend. I want to say to the hon. member, Sir, that if he had the wit to make a speech that we are prepared to listen to, we will sit here and listen to it. If he has not the wit to make a speech I suggest he goes outside if he does not like my speech.

I want to come back to the question of double citizenship. I hope, Sir, and should like to express the wish of the hon. member for Green Point, that the hon. the Minister would come absolutely clearly before us with a statement as to which citizens of what countries have double citizenship here in South Africa, of which the second citizenship is a South African citizenship plus one other. What is the other country in respect of which there can be a double citizenship here in South Africa—one being a South African citizenship and the other, say X. What are the countries of X which can have that second citizenship?

I will give you that.

Sir, this is of course one of the questions that we are bound to be very interested in; there is a reason for that. It is possible that there may be a relatively small number of countries. I do not know whether there are or not. We have been looking at the law books and so on—not me, Sir, as I am only a poor farmer from the back veld; I refer to those legal people on whom I rely implicitly and who have given evidence repeatedly in this House of the superlative character of their legal opinions. Those people have been advising me in the matter and they tell me it is a very limited number indeed of other countries where their citizens can retain their citizenship here in South Africa when they take South African citizenship. I believe it is a very small number indeed. If I am wrong and it is a very large number, the hon. the Minister can correct me.

I will get the information.

I do not want to go on talking on the basis that it is a very small number if in fact that is not correct.

I will get the information.

Assuming it is a very small number, then all the provisions here are not going to be directed at, what I would call, a general campaign, a broad Government activity, to get these people out of South Africa. I should now like to deal with those who are found guilty of drug peddling. It will be limited to only a few citizens of a few countries. I am now concerned with the people who are guilty of drug peddling who do not enjoy a second citizenship apart from South African citizenship. The hon. the Minister will still have to deal with those people in another manner. In other words, this is not a solution to the problem.

I have the power under the Drugs Act to deal with people who are not South African citizens.

I am not asking the hon. the Minister whether he has the power to deal with people who are not South African citizens under the Drugs Act; I am not asking that.

I have that power.

Yes, I know you have that; that is fair enough. I am asking you what you are doing about those people who are South African citizens? You are taking power here to deal with those who have a second citizenship and you are going to find out how many countries there are where that will apply. Now, in the countries where it does not apply, how are you going to deal with the South African citizen who has no second citizenship?

I cannot deal with such a person under this Act as I have to deal with him under the Drugs Act in the normal way. I cannot act against him under this Act.

The person who is a South African citizen?

Without any other citizenship.

And the person who is not a South African citizen, a foreigner without South African citizenship? Can we deal with him under the Drugs Act?

Yes.

Now we are getting clarity. If he is a South African citizen, the Minister can deal with him under the Drugs Act. If he is not a South African citizen, but a foreigner, the Minister can deal with him under the Drugs Act and all the difficulties about tests in court, etc., all fall away. Now, if he is a South African citizen and a citizen of another country the Minister says he cannot deal with him.

I do not have the power to deal with him under the Drugs Act. That is all. [Interjections.]

I think I should leave that matter there. I leave that matter to the jury—I may say I look upon the other side of the House as the jury. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I beg your pardon for stopping in the middle like this, because it is material to me to know whether the Minister is going to say that there are a large number of countries where people can enjoy double citizenship or whether it is a small number.

We do not know exactly how many countries there are, but we have very many people with dual citizenship in South Africa. [Interjections.] It is not the number of countries who allow dual citizenship but the number of people who enjoy dual citizenship that matters.

Now the hon. the Minister gives me a reply which shows very clearly that he has not taken the point that we are making from this side of the House because he says—and I do not want to misquote him—it is a large number of people but we do not know how many countries. There may in fact be a very small number of countries.

The number of countries is immaterial.

The number of countries may be one or two but there is a large number of people. The hon. the Minister says that the number of countries is immaterial. That is just our point; it is not immaterial because under this Bill you can only deal with the people from that one country, if it is only one country, in respect of which there can be double citizenship. In respect of all the other countries he can deal with them under the Drugs Act. Therefore it is very material indeed—and I hope that before he gets up to reply he will be able to find out how many countries there are. Surely that is not a very difficult answer for the hon. the Minister of the Interior to find. However, I am not prepared to pursue the matter any further. Surely even this small debate in the House in the few minutes I have taken up indicate quite clearly that the Minister would be well advised, in the interests of something like South African citizenship, to look at this matter again. As far as I can see, if there is one thing in South Africa about which there should be no dispute and where the Opposition should, where possible, find itself at evens with the Government, it is in matters of citizenship. Let us all stand united so far as South African citizenship is concerned, irrespective of political divisions and so forth. This is one of those important matters which may create a schism and I hope the hon. the Minister will still withdraw this Bill and come forward with a simple Bill in which he tells us what he wants. He can then ask the Opposition to support him.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to help the hon. member for South Coast. As far as citizenship is concerned, the position is that this aspect is regulated by the citizenship laws of every country. Citizenship laws differ from country to country and from time to time. Therefore it is not possible to mention at any specific stage a certain number of countries which permit or do not permit dual citizenship. In looking at our own Act, we see that our own Act permits dual citizenship. Duel citizenship is permitted until such time as the Minister decides that he is going to withdraw the South African citizenship of a person naturalized in another country. I have gone into the matter and found that the position is exactly the same in Great Britain. In Great Britain a person remains a citizen of Great Britain unless he commits certain acts or unless he has become a citizen of another country. In that case his British citizenship is only terminated when he makes a declaration renouncing his British citizenship. Consequently this means that in that particular case a British citizen may retain his British citizenship for quite some time, even if he has become a South African citizen. I have also looked into the position in New Zealand, and exactly the same kind of legislation applies there too. In other words, New Zealanders may remain New Zealand citizens even if they have acquired South African citizenship. I could not get hold of the latest position in respect of continental countries, but an old book I have here points to exactly the same situation having obtained in the thirties in respect of numerous countries on the Continent of Europe. The position is therefore that every country has its own citizenship laws and makes its own arrangements as far as these matters are concerned. Now, it is impossible, I should say, to give you at this stage an exact figure in respect of countries permitting dual citizenship. We do therefore permit it. All civilized countries in the world permit it.

However, this Bill does not deal with the right of citizenship or of dual citizenship. The Bill before us deals with the abuse of dual citizenship. That is the topic we should discuss, not whether the Minister has extraordinary powers or whether we have here a right which is being lost to a person. The topic of discussion here is the question of the abuse of dual citizenship to the detriment of South Africa. That is the aspect we want to keep in check here, for we are dealing here with people who are acting to the detriment of South Africa. We do not consider it to be in the public interest for these people to retain their South African citizenship as well. That is the object of this Bill.

This legislation touches upon a topic which is a most delicate one, namely the question of the retention of citizenship and other related rights, such as the franchise. It also affects the question of free entry into South Africa. It affects the family one may bring along with one to South Africa. It affects a whole group of persons who can acquire certain rights in South Africa-under the cloak of citizenship. It does therefore affect a number of different aspects. These delicate aspects are matters which one does not blaze abroad just like that. They are matters which, if they were to be fought out in the courts, would expose us for a full year to legal proceedings and what they involve. If I understand the hon. members opposite correctly, they are telling us: We are not against the principle of the Bill, i.e. that dual citizenship may be terminated, but just tell us under what circumstances you can terminate it; just tell us that this will be applied in the case of a terrorist who may not be allowed to enter the country, or in the case of a drug pedlar, for in such cases we shall go along with you. If we were to start putting definitions into this Bill, if we were to start defining every case, we would in course of time have such a jumble of definitions and cases that we would perhaps lose the principle of the Bill. All the loopholes that would be sought for the purpose of getting round the legislation would have to be stopped up continually. I prefer the standpoint of the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister’s standpoint is to hang it on the peg of a broad principle, viz. that a person must, in the first place, have dual citizenship—in other words, he must have committed an act of acquiring another citizenship or of retaining another citizenship—and, in the second place, that he must have committed an act which is not in the interests of South Africa, for the Minister can only take steps if what the person did is not in the public interest. That is the way it is stated here in the Bill. That is why I would prefer us not to write any definitions, case histories and examples into this legislation. I think if we keep to the principle of the matter, our position will be a much safer one and then we shall in fact, in course of time, be able to handle the cases that occur.

The hon. member for Green Point told us that in terms of his approach to the matter, he felt he could not give the Minister carte blanche. But the hon. member is wrong. We are not giving the Minister carte blanche. We are not giving the Minister the right to act as he pleases and to deprive people of citizenship in an arbitrary manner. A number of protective measures have been embodied in this legislation for the benefit of South African citizen. There are at least three of them. In the first place, we have this question of public interest. One cannot deprive the South African citizen of his rights unless it is in the public interest to do so. That is the way it has been written into this legislation, The second aspect that goes hand in hand with this, is that this person must at least have committed the act of either acquiring or retaining another citizenship, so that this particular citizen must at least have committed these two positive acts. The fact of the possession of such a foreign citizenship is one that must be taken into account. If he does not have it, the provision we are discussing is not applicable here. These citizens who will therefore be affected by this legislation, are people who have committed certain acts.

The hon. member for Green Point referred to the fact that section 19bis(1) provided that before the Minister could take any action in terms of subsection (1) certain acts had to have been performed on the part of the South African citizen concerned. That is true and is what that section provides. My contention is that also in the case of the new subsection being inserted here, the one we are discussing now, there must have been positive acts on the part of the citizen before the Minister can take any steps. He cannot arbitrarily deprive a citizen of the country of his citizenship without the latter’s having committed these two acts. He must at least have acquired or retained the citizenship of another foreign country and he must have acted against the public interest. That, briefly, is the whole situation; these are the guarantees that are being incorporated, and these are the principles in terms of which the Minister will act.

I am satisfied that the Minister is in any case a person who must act with a great deal of responsibility because he is exposed to all the criticism of public opinion and the criticism which may be expressed in this House in respect of his actions. All those guarantees have also been incorporated in this legislation. The Minister cannot in this respect act in an arbitrary manner without justifying himself in terms of this legislation. This would, within the framework of the system in which we are moving and governing, expose him to such a flood of criticism that he would not be able to stand it. I am satisfied that the principle is correct. I am satisfied that sufficient guarantees exist, and I am satisfied that this legislation can be accepted the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Bellville where he reads anywhere in this Bill that this Bill has to do with the misuse of dual citizenship to the detriment of South Africa. His whole argument was built on that point, but there is absolutely nothing in either of these new subsections to state anything of the kind. This is a clause which gives the hon. the Minister the right, if he considers it to be in the public interest, to deprive any person “who has also the citizenship or nationality of a country other than the Union”, of his South African citizenship. It is perfectly clear. He does not have to prove that the person has misused his dual citizenship and he does not have to prove that he has misused his dual citizenship to the detriment of South Africa.

The other point with which I wish to disagree, which the hon. member for Bellville mentioned—he might in fact be correct, but my interpretation is rather different—is where he said that this clause the hon. the Minister is introducing, which vests him with new powers, can only apply to somebody who has actually acquired the citizenship of another country.

Or retained it.

You see, you retain it automatically in many cases. To the best of my knowledge, anybody who has a father who was born in Britain retains a dual nationality. I do not know about citizenship, and I am not too sure of this legal point, but very many people retain it without ever making use of it. But according to the hon. member here, if one has—the expression is “has also”—the citizenship or nationality—so both cases are covered—of a country other than the Republic, one is in fact not affected by this provision, unless one has actually made some overt use of it. In other words, as he sees it, the amendment which was introduced in 1962 was never necessary. So I think his interpretation there is quite incorrect. I want to say, by the way, that I opposed the amendment which was introduced in 1962. I thought I had. I could not believe that I would have agreed to that. As the hon. member for Green Point told me, the official Opposition did. So I hastily looked it up and, indeed, I did oppose the amending clause; because I was of the opinion that the Minister of the Interior had wide enough powers as it was to deprive anybody of their South African citizenship. I thought it was quite wrong to extend this power, so that anyone who made use of his right of dual citizenship, whether it was to the misuse or in fact to the advantage of South Africa so to do, should be running the risk of being deprived of his citizenship.

Indeed, many thousands of people have made use of that right and they have not been deprived of their citizenship. But I did not want to give any such right to the hon. the Minister. It seemed to me that when young people went overseas and they had the right to take out, shall we say, a work permit in Britain, it was not to the disadvantage of South Africa. And yet, if their politics disagreed with the politics of the Government, that could be used to punish them. Equally, lots of people took out British passports and retained their South African passports in order to do business with the African states and other areas where they would not be admitted on a South African passport. I was against the then hon. Minister having the right to remove the citizenship of a South African for that reason. So I voted against that extension of power in 1962. It will come as no surprise to the hon. the Minister to know that I obviously am going to oppose the Second Reading and the clauses of this Bill.

I am sorry that the very first Bill the hon. the Minister is introducing this year should be the cause of further friction between us. I was rather hoping our old beautiful friendship could be renewed. Anyway, on this basis, I want to assure him that there is nothing personal in my attitude whatsoever. It is a matter of very important principle with me that he does not get any further extended powers. I want to say that his assurances are not acceptable to me; but nor would the assurances of any other Minister sitting in that bench have been acceptable either. I have over the years not accepted assurances of various Ministers in various portfolios for excellent reasons. I so often have found that the assurances are honoured more in the breach than in the observance thereof. Because, you see, Sir, power is just like eating …

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

Very well, then, I will have to come back to this hon. Minister, but, as I say, with the assurance to him—and this assurance he can accept—that this is not on a personal basis. I do not accept ministerial assurances. Once a Minister has wide powers, he can use those powers against anyone he likes, whether or not he has assured us, as this hon. Minister did today in his Second Reading speech, that he does not intend to use the powers for which he is asking today except in the cases mentioned by him. At least, that was his first assurance; later he seemed to me in an interjection to move away from that.

It was included in my Second Reading speech.

Then I must have missed that.

We all missed it.

Everybody missed it; I am glad to hear that. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will tell us in what other cases he might use this power. [Interjections.] However, as I read the report of the interview which he gave to Die Burger, the same one which was quoted by the hon. member for Green Point, he said pretty specifically that he only wanted this power against persons who smuggled drugs and who had dual citizenship. He gave no other ’’for instances”, if I may quote Damon Runyan, or whoever it was who first used that expression. In any case, whether he gave an assurance or not, once this blanket power is on the Statute Book he need not worry any further; he can use it against anybody he likes, or rather, dislikes, and his successor can use it against anyone he likes, or dislikes, and I may say that the courts are not interested anyway in the intention behind an Act; they are only interested in the actual wording of the legislation, and under the clauses as they stand, he can use this power against anyone. I am surprised to hear the Opposition saying that if the hon. the Minister had been specific and had mentioned only drug smugglers, they would have supported this legislation.

We might have considered it.

Sir, I would not have supported it even then.

Naturally.

The hon. member over there must not jump to conclusions. It does not follow naturally at all.

Why raise the issue then?

I would not have supported it for a very good reason and that is that the principle of giving the Minister this power is dead wrong because, Sir, there are other crimes which to my mind are equally heinous. Why only drug smugglers?

[Inaudible.]

You see, Sir, how easy it is. He is at least logical in this.

You are strengthening my argument.

But then, Sir, the hon. the Minister should have used this argument at the interview which he gave to Die Burger.

You do not give all the details of a Bill in an interview.

I will admit that. The hon. the Minister says he does not give all the details, but then he must not specifically give the wrong impression. I am not saying that he did so intentionally.

That is the main reason.

Very well, that is the main reason, but there are other crimes which are equally heinous. Some, of course, are considered more heinous than others by different members. Hon. members on the other side may think that stock theft, for instance, is sufficient cause to justify this action. Stock theft is practically a capital offence in this country. Then there are contraventions of the Immorality Act. Already there is the threat to use certain powers as far as sex across the border is concerned. I would not have supported this. I think it is wrong in principle to allow a Minister to punish further than the courts of law. I think it is undemocratic. We have our laws, and if the laws are broken, the persons concerned must be charged before the courts of law, and if they are convicted then that is their punishment. This is a sort of Sobukwe-in-reserve clause. Sobukwe could be kept in gaol after he had served his sentence because the hon. the Minister of Justice had the power so to do.

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

This hon. Minister is now taking unto himself further powers to punish people who have already been punished by the courts of law, and surely by any standards our drugs law is a very drastic law indeed. The hon. the Minister himself told us that it was one of the most drastic in the world, with very severe penalties and minimum sentence, which, as you know, is one of the main reasons why I opposed that law last year. Sir, over and above that, the Minister is taking powers to deprive persons of their citizenship when they have already been heavily punished. I have no objection to their being punished heavily, but what I object to is a minimum sentence. I do not want the discretion of the courts of law to be interfered with. Nevertheless, those person will have been heavily punished, and now we have the hon. the Minister taking further steps against them. I am absolutely against that in principle. I want to point out to him in this regard that the Potgieter Report has something to say about the courts and their powers. In this respect I am now referring to the second part of the clause, where the Minister allows no right of appeal against his sentence of deprivation of South African citizenship where a person has the right to dual citizenship, and he may presumably deport him, because otherwise there is no point in it, and he does not have to give any reasons. The Potgieter Report said in paragraph 270—

The commission goes on to say, in effect anyway, that the powers of the courts should be interfered with only when it is absolutely necessary to guarantee the security of the State. This goes very far beyond that and I do not believe that the hon. the Minister has given us any good or logical reasons as to why he is coming along here to ask for these powers. In principle I think it is a dangerous thing for this House to adopt. As I said, power feeds on itself and powers, once taken, have a tendency to extend, just as we have noticed in other cases where laws have been passed and Ministers have given assurances when introducing those laws by telling us that these things will apply only to certain classes of people, either to communists or to terrorists, etc., but we find that in practice the laws are applied to a very much wider class of people. Now we are not even getting those assurances any more from the hon. the Minister, because he has stated this afternoon by way of interjection, that he has given only an example. I think he is asking for enormous powers this afternoon and I, for one, certainly do not propose to help him to gain those powers.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by referring to a remark made by my hon. friend, the member for Algoa, when he was doing a little delving into the past of the United Party. I want to say to my hon. colleague that it is really becoming a little dangerous to go delving into the past of the United Party, because particularly today people will possibly think that one is dealing with a conference of the “sestigers”.

The hon. member for South Coast had problems in respect of the new paragraph (b) of the clause, that is the part which deals with people who also have citizenship or nationality of a country other than the Union. He had problems regarding the meaning of citizenship and nationality. I am no lawyer but if one refers to the work of Prof. Verloren van Themaat, Staatsreg, the second edition, one finds under chapter 21, “Citizenship” (translation)—

He goes on to say—

And Francois, if I pronounce it correctly, states (translation)—

He goes on to say that citizenship consequently means the capacity of an individual in that he stands in a certain relation of authority towards a particular state, in the sense that he may lay claim to certain rights in and protection by that State and on his part owes loyalty and obedience to that State. I wish to leave Verloren Van Themaat here, but I have not yet finished with the hon. member for South Coast.

May I put a question?

I do not know whether I shall have time to finish my speech, but if there is an opportunity he may put his question.

† But if the hon. member would like to have some brain exercise, I can ask him to read ‘“the Transkeian Citizens of South African Nationality”.

*It is an article which appeared in the periodical Hedendaagse Romeinse-Holland-se Reg, 1963. There you will find a fair amount of speculation on this particular subject.

It will save you reading all those books, man.

The hon. member for South Coast is an illustration of the proverb: The leopard cannot change its snots. I, too, had a quick look at history. The fact that the hon. member for South Coast made such a fuss today about those people who used their dual citizenship illegitimately and wrongfully, is interesting to me. When we consult the debates of 1949 on the Citizenship Act we see that even then the hon. member saw fearful things in the future, about what the National Party was going to do with the citizens of this country. He said, inter alia (col. 7656)—

In other words, in 1949 the hon. member predicted terrible things that the National Party was supposedly going to do and I now ask any hon. member opposite: What has happened since 1949? Has the National Party acted towards people in such a way that it has brought terror to South Africa? However, I want to proceed and quote more of what the hon. member said at that time about dual citizenship and dual loyalty, as follows—

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members of the Opposition are still thinking in terms of their thoughts of Empire when they discuss this matter. A dual loyalty is still inherent in them, to the Republic of South Africa on the one hand and the commonwealth on the other. We leave the hon. member for South Coast at that.

The key to the first clause I want to discuss, is to be found, as far as I am concerned, in the fact that it is provided that the Minister may by order deprive a person of his South African citizenship if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest that such a citizen shall cease to be a South African citizen. In other words, the key words, as far as I am concerned, are “public interest”. I do not expect a discussion of the aspect of public interest from the hon. member for Houghton. After all, our philosophies of life are totally different. The hon. members of the Opposition always lay claim to wanting to act in the public interest too. The problem is actually what is really meant by the term public interest. What is, to a community, the public interest? I must say that in the modern times in which we are living, there are radical differences as to what is in the public interest, particularly for the Republic of South Africa. There are those, whom I associate with the hon. member for Houghton, who see life and man’s way of life as a whim of fashion which may change with the seasons and does not acknowledge or respect history. They are people who do not acknowledge and attach any meaning to the roots and the vital growth of human communities as organisms. Today they want it this way and tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, they want to discard everything in order to establish something new; they want to see a human community as compost out of which one may cause something new to grow each time; it does not matter how strong, how solid and how meaningful those things which grow out of it may be to those people. It is these people who in our modern times make of the hero a coward and who make of the coward a hero, who regard treason as a heroic deed, and the heroic deeds of the past, as treason. It is they who want to make good evil and evil good. In these modem times they want to make use of all these modern technical aids with just this object, to let their own perversity run riot and, quite simply, to destroy normal things in the community. It is against these people that we want to protect our community. We want to protect them against these modern people who with their intellect, their arguments, their written and spoken words, have simply become a band of robbers by whom humanity must be plunged into a swamp of misery and fatalism. Then when one wants to get at them, as we wish to do, inter alia, by means of this legislation, they do what the young man did who murdered his parents in order to attend a party at an orphanage. When they wanted to deal with him at the party he said, “No, I am an orphan; you can do nothing to me”. This is the kind of person we want to deal with here. I find it astonishing that the United Party who are always boasting that they also want to serve the community, vote against this Bill in principle without their telling this House in clear terms what they consider to be in the public interest in South Africa. The reason this is so is that the United Party blows hot and cold. On the one hand it wants to go along with the outside world, and on the other it wants to tell the conservative people that it also wishes to give them meaning in their lives. I wish to refer hon. members to a motion which was discussed a few years ago in this House and on which three members of this Opposition spoke. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, among others, and the hon. member for Mooi River, spoke on the motion. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout simply questioned all values in the idiom of modernistic thought. As against that, the hon. member for Mooi River gave a meaningful conception of order, of decency and of dignity. I wish to say that the United Party in opposing this legislation is talking in a voice which contains not only the seeds of its own destruction, but also the seeds of the destruction of all national communities in South Africa.

Then it is also important that we refer to the hon. member for Houghton for a moment. As I said a moment ago, it does not surprise me that the hon. member for Houghton voted against this particular Bill, because hon. members will remember that when we on this side of the House, to be more specific, the Minister who has introduced this legislation, introduced the Bill on drugs, the hon. member for Houghton, in contrast to the official Opposition, voted against it. She said various things. Because I do not under any circumstances wish to interpret her words incorrectly, I shall quote what she said. She was very superficial in her approach with regard to the use of dagga. [Interjections.] Among other things she said—I am mentioning this specifically in response to that interjection that this has nothing to do with the Bill—after the Minister had said why he had mentioned one of the reasons why it was necessary for this legislation to be placed on the Statute Book … [Interjections.] I want to tell hon. members of the Opposition that I know that Helen is their friend. She can look after herself and if she wishes to talk and put certain questions or make suggestions, we may well leave it to her. The hon. member for Houghton said, inter alia—and I quote from Hansard of 6th May, 1971, column 6104—

Then she went on to ask for the proposal concerned to be dropped. She mentioned the following reasons for her proposal and I quote from col. 6105—

1. (1) it interferes with the discretion of the courts of law;
2. (2) it will result in large numbers of young drug users going to gaol;
3. (3) it introduces presumptions which greatly increase the onus of proof on the accused; and
4. (4) it infringes the rule of law and diminishes civil rights.

Mr. Speaker, I think it has become necessary in our society for responsible people—and when I talk of responsible people, we must think of our parents; every father and every mother!—to say that the Progressive Party, through the hon. member for Houghton, is playing with the future of our children. She becomes a mediator for the weaklings, for those young people who grew up in broken or neglected homes, who want to play with their own lives and with the future of human communities. I think that it has become essential for hon. members of the United Party to condemn both the hon. member for Houghton and the whole Progressive Party in the strongest terms if they consider the continued existence of humanity and also of South Africa to be of any importance. One does not wish to speak lightly about these things, but the hon. member for Houghton is mediating in South Africa for weaklings on the one hand and for the rich on the other who do not know the meaning of discipline, order and decency.

Nonsense! He is worried about his image at the Pretoria University.

I am concerned that people like the hon. member for Houghton, in her position, go from platform to platform in this country stating a viewpoint which simply contains the germ of death for our young people.

I have lost you a few votes there.

Then they always come along and shelter behind our courts. In this way we again witnessed the hon. member for Houghton together with hon. members of the Opposition objecting today to clause 1(b) of the Bill, which reads—

One thing is very clear to me, and that is that here we are not dealing with normal people. We are dealing with growing communities throughout the world which have no respect for values, for the courts or for the law. It has become essential, not only for us in South Africa, but for all people throughout the world, for methods to be put into effect with a view to coming to grips with these people. We are dealing here with a group of people with whom one can simply no longer deal as one would in the normal course of events and as one would like to deal with normal people. We, as the National Party, respect the law and the courts just as much as any other country in the world. But on the other hand, if we have a problem in our community and it is necessary to deal with that problem, then we shall deal with it with the responsibility which the people have vested in us. This legislation is not aimed at healthy, normal people, but at people who abuse their privileges and their positions in society. Therefore I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he is doing the country a favour. The country and every parent in this country who has young children who may still go wrong, are grateful to him for having the courage of his convictions to introduce this Bill here today.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down and whom I choose to call a friend, has made a speech which I feel was disappointing. He says that the Government only acts against abnormal people and that normal people are left alone. I would like to tell him that the difference between us very often is what is normal and what is abnormal. Very often what we on this side of the House feel is normal, is thought to be abnormal by the Government.

And vice versa.

What disappointed me too, was that he listed a whole series of offences linking them to the Progressive Party, saying that these were the sort of things the Government would act against. Obviously if these are the sort of things the Government could act against—heaven knows we have enough laws in South Africa; we are probably the most over-governed country in the Western world—there are plenty of laws to act against people in this way.

What I would like to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention is one or two salient points. The first one is that this Bill as I see it is going to affect thousands upon thousands of British immigrants, people who have come out from the United Kingdom specifically.

Why?

The Minister said it will affect lots of people. From the information my friend the hon. member for Green Point was able to discover … [Interjections.] When you have finished your private talk … [Interjections.] From the information that my friend the hon. member for Green Point has been able to discover only a few countries were involved. When the member for South Coast taxed the Minister on this point he said that there were lots of people, but that the countries were not necessarily totalled up. I am saying to the hon. the Minister that, as a very large number of the people who come to South Africa, come from the United Kingdom and as it does not apply there and they can have dual citizenship, most of the people affected by this legislation will in fact be people who have come from the United Kingdom itself. Surely this is logical to the hon. the Minister. I am one of those people in this House who do qualify for dual citizenship and therefore I feel qualified to speak on a measure like this. I have no passport of any other country but this one, but I do qualify for one. In his earlier statement to the Press the Minister said that this measure was aimed mainly at drug pedlars, but today he says it is aimed at others as well. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, and the country is entitled to know from the hon. the Minister, who are these others? Unless he tells this House and tells South Africa who these others are he is aiming at, then we have every right to feel as much suspicious as we have felt sometimes in the past. I am not criticizing the Minister in a personal manner either, but anybody who has had dealings with this department on matters similar to this can tell you that time after time you simply get no information out of the department. No information is ever given to us. In a debate which took place in this House in 1961 on the South African Citizenship Act, the Minister at that time said this: “I shall give my personal attention to all cases where citizenship is refused or taken away and it will not be administered departmentally by officials. It is also possible to discuss such cases in Parliament if the Minister should act too arbitrarily.” In my experience in Parliament over seven or eight sessions I have never yet found a Minister getting up in this Parliament and, in answers to questions, give reasons. It has never been done yet, and for this reason we are entitled to say the things we do in regard to this particular measure. The Minister says he has to give no reasons for the action he takes, and he gave his reasons for that. But until the Minister can give us a better answer than that, and tell us whom he is acting against or aiming at, apart from the drug pedlars, we will not be satisfied. As far as I am concerned, unlike the hon. member for Houghton, you can do what you like to drug pedlars, but when it comes to others I have certain reservations. My feeling is this: If you want to act against anybody in this measure—and it is a very serious one—then surely they should be convicted in a court of law. Having convicted them in a court of law, you are entitled to act in the manner which the Minister seeks. Because if he does not do so now, after his statement in Die Burger that this is aimed at drug pedlars, the friends and enemies of anybody who loses his citizenship in future—if he goes back to the United Kingdom, for instance—will be entitled to say that he was kicked out of South Africa because he must have been a drug pedlar, as the Minister said that he was acting against drug pedlars under this legislation.

No.

This is what the Minister said in Die Burger, that it was aimed against drug pedlars. Well, words seem to mean different things to us both. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Is he aiming this Bill at people with whom he does not agree politically?

Of course not.

Is he aiming it at religious workers who happen to hold dual citizenship? There are many of these in South Africa. I am asking a direct question.

Depending upon whether they abuse their citizenship or not.

Abuse their citizenship in whose opinion?

In the public interest.

In the interests of the Nationalist Party, or in the interests of South Africa?

No, in the public interest.

Mr. Speaker. I am sorry I cannot accept this. I do not wish to throw names across the floor of this House, but I am prepared to bet, and I have already said so to my friends here, that the day this legislation is signed by the State President, within months thereafter a certain religious worker in this country will be given notice, for the simple reason that they have not been able to prove a single offence against this particular man. They do not like the way he acts. He may have acted unwisely—I am not prepared to discuss that. But this is the sort of thing that can happen under this Bill. Therefore, the literally hundreds of thousands—because that is what the total would be—of South Africans here who qualify for dual citizenship if their parents were born in the United Kingdom, can take notice that from the day that this Bill becomes law the Minister can act against them and they have no right of recourse whatsoever. He can act against them for a host of reasons, and some of them may be political. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that, strange as it may seem, the hon. the Minister could act against me as well the day after this Bill becomes law. There is nothing I can do about it. I cannot appeal; it says so in the legislation. I cannot do anything about it; there is nothing I can do but accept it and go, because I happen to qualify on this basis for dual citizenship. The Minister may never act in this way, and I have a feeling that he probably wouldn’t, but as other members on this side have said, they cannot be so sure, if one thinks of the history of this House over the years as regards both sides of the House. I am not saying that it would only happen on that side. We could, by some misfortune, have a Minister, too, who got up late in the morning in a bad mood and acted the same way. This is what counts in our Parliament: Not what Ministers say, but what is written down in the law, which everybody can understand. So, Sir, this is the sort of thing that can happen. I do not wish to highlight my own particular position, but if the hon. Minister of the day happens to be a person who takes particular offence to something I might say, even though I be a member of this House, he could turn round the next day and say: “You have lost your South African citizenship, because you do in fact qualify for another one.” Strange as it may seem, this is how the legislation reads. Therefore I think that we are fully entitled under a democratic system to appeal to the hon. the Minister to look at democracy as it works, to look at it not in the way he would wish it to work, but the way it does work. In future there may be another Minister sitting in his place—the sooner, the better, as far as we are concerned; but there may be other Ministers. There may be good or bad ones, and in fact they may act in such a manner that he has to take action under this Bill. Sir. I and other members on this side of the House can give examples where time after time we have appealed for information on issues of a similar nature and have never been given that information. The standard answer is that it is not in the public interest to disclose the information.

It is not in the public interest.

Why, for instance, cannot a person, who has not been convicted before any court of law, be called before the Minister; the Minister can then tell him to his face, “I am taking your citizenship away for reason A, B or C”? If his reasons are sound, the Minister has no fear of being taken to court. What the Minister does fear is that he may be taken to court and that the court may make the department look like a bunch of monkeys in a particular instance. Sir, it does no good to the name of South African democracy, to the name of this Parliament, that we should have presented before us a Bill which says one thing and in fact means another. Every citizen in South Africa is entitled to know that legislation which is passed by this House receives proper consideration. We on this side of the House have posed questions to that side of the House and not one member on that side has got up and agreed with some of the doubts that we have expressed. I believe, therefore, that we are fully entitled to say that this legislation has been brought forward without proper consideration. It is something which we should not be proud to have on our Statute Book.

Finally, Sir, I say to the hon. the Minister that if he wants to act against real wrongdoers, the people who do commit offences—and I have no doubt that there are many—then there are plenty of laws in South Africa under which they can be found guilty, and if they are found guilty, then take away their citizenship. But the Minister has no right to set himself up as a court of law and then refuse to be questioned in this House, or even by the person against whom he has acted.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Natal stated that thousands and thousands of British immigrants would be affected by this Bill. Those were his words; I wrote them down. I want to tell him that he is absolutely wrong. I can assure him that thousands will not be affected, because I do not expect, and we on this side of the House do not expect, that thousands of British immigrants coming to this country would commit the types of crime or become involved in activities which the Minister would take into consideration in deciding whether to deprive a person of his South African citizenship or not.

Tell me what those crimes are.

Sir, objections were raised here because access to the courts was supposedly now being blocked all of a sudden. Sir, we are the last people who will say that a court of law is not also competent to decide what is or is not in the public interest. But this is not really the point in this particular case, for the simple reason that it is obvious—and the hon. the Minister stated this so clearly that it astonishes one that this debate has been going on for so long—that one can think of a whole number of cases, over and above that of the drug peddlar, where it will be necessary for a government to be able to take quick and swift action. We must have machinery enabling the Minister and the Government in certain circumstances to bring, swiftly, certainty about the position of, for instance, a fugitive criminal, or of a person who can commit acts of sabotage in all sorts of spheres. Do hon. members opposite want us to spell out everything? It is true, of course, that there is virtually no end to the number of cases in respect of which it may be expected of this Minister that he take urgent action. Do hon. members want the public of South Africa to say to the Minister, “Why do you not have the necessary powers to act? Do you want to tell us that you do not have the power, in a given case, where a person abuses his South African citizenship and hides behind another citizenship when it suits him, to take action against him; that you cannot do anything to that fellow?” Like a two-faced person he is to be free to choose, whenever he pleases, to do harm and hide behind his second citizenship, but we cannot do anything about it. That is what is involved here.

Then I also want to point out that the limited circumstance in which the Minister may act, namely that a person must have two citizenships, is being limited further when it comes to the courts and access to the courts, and that it is merely that part of the Minister’s discretion, where he has to decide what is in the public interest, which will not be subject to reference to the courts. There is, therefore, a further limitation in this regard. But now the Opposition is carrying on here as though the rights of the individual, everything, is now being prejudiced all of a sudden, but they do not consider that the public interest, the rights of a people, probably outweights the number of cases that have now come up for discussion, cases of these serious acts being committed and of which we must be purged. The hon. member for Green Point said that “public interest” was such a vague and wide concept, and asked how one determined it; the other norms had been defined, and they knew exactly what the Minister had to work with. Mr. Speaker, that is not true. Let us look at this aspect. It is already in the Minister’s discretion to deprive a person of his citizenship if the Minister is of the opinion that the person concerned has made use of the citizenship or nationality of another country. What is that? Can they tell me whether we have defined here what is meant by “making use of the citizenship of another country”? What does it mean? It is a discretion exercised by the Minister. No principle contained in the old Act is being changed here. This is therefore nothing but another case of a dust being raised. What we are witnessing all of a sudden in this House today is merely a show being put on by them for the benefit of the general public. No principle is being changed here. Let me remind them of what the position was in the olden days. In the olden days, when we were still a kingdom, there was a provision in terms of which the Minister had a discretion to take steps if a person was outside the country and showed himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards His Majesty. When is one disloyal or disaffected towards His Majesty? At the time, when they took people to task for those things, this did not worry them. It suited them then. Now they are kicking up a fuss because the Minister wants to take steps against persons such as drug peddlars. Another question that arises is why such a person, if he is supposed to be so fond of South Africa and his South African citizenship, does not have only one citizenship. Why does he not accent South African citizenship only? After all, then he would be safeguarded. Where they are wide of the mark. Sir, is in respect of the simple fact that the Minister may only take steps in a case where a person has dual citizenship; therefore all the other arguments fall away. There are countries in the world that do not permit dual citizenship. Such cruel countries, one would be able to say, according to the Opposition? There is no such thing as dual citizenship being such a universal phenomenon. There is no such thing as dual citizenship being a right. There is no such thing. How many citizenships do they want—six or seven or eight or 12? Where do they want to stop? As long as a person has one citizenship in this country, be it a foreign one or his own South African one, the Minister’s powers are excluded. It is only when a person has dual citizenship and does certain things which in the opinion of the Minister are not in the public interest that steps may be taken against him. And what happens then? He is deprived of his South African citizenship and he still has another citizenship. But the Minister may not take steps against him if he does not have another citizenship. I repeat that a person who indulges in malpractices to such an extent that he focuses upon himself the attention of the authorities, be it the police or others, must then come to the notice of an hon. Minister of this Government and then he must simply realize—and we had experience of that in the past—that he is already unworthy of South African citizenship; and that is the end of the whole matter, and now they can kick up a fuss and carry on as much as they please. The question of the courts would not have come up at all if we had had an Act providing that one were only permitted to have South African citizenship. If we had had an Act providing that one were only permitted to have South African citizenship—there are historic circumstances for this being impossible—but there are instances where this is the case—if nothing but South African citizenship were involved, this measure would not have been introduced. Therefore, can they not see that we are concerned here with a person who is a South African citizen and also the citizen of another country and who has then indulged in misconduct, and that public opinion in this country, all of us, would then want to know “Why are no steps being taken against such a person? We do not want him as a citizen.”

The hon. member for Wonderboom, who has just been speaking, makes a fundamental mistake when he says that if we on this side refer to the dual citizenship which people have we make it out to be a right which people must have. The argument here, however, is specifically concerned with cases where South African citizenship has been accepted. Apart from certain provisions in the South African Citizenship Act, there are some countries of whose citizenship one cannot rid ourself, even if one wanted to. For example, the hon. member for Port Natal cannot, no matter what he does, rid himself of the fact that he was born overseas and consequently qualifies for citizenship of another country.

You are talking nonsense now.

You can do absolutely nothing about it. You are a South African citizen but in terms of the proposed section 10bis(1)(b) steps may be taken against you, for according to law it will be considered that you are a person with dual citizenship.

You can forego it.

These are the facts. That hon. member says that one can forego it. One cannot finally forego the citizenship of certain countries. They always regard you as a citizen of that country. This is a fact and I am certain that the hon. Minister’s legal experts as well will tell him the same thing. There are certain countries—and this became quite apparent from questions which the hon. member for South Coast put—of whose citizenship one cannot rid ourself.

No.

Which countries are those?

I shall leave that specific point at that and proceed to the …

Do you not know which countries these are?

According to my information one specific country is Great Britain. Even if you accept the citizenship of another country you cannot dissociate yourself from the citizenship of Great Britain. In any case, I shall leave that specific point at that. I just want to remind the hon. member for Wonderboom that clear reference is made in the proposed section 19bis(1)(a(i) to a person who performs certain voluntary acts. Such a person is entitled to reasons and cannot be excluded in terms of the provisions of the proposed subsection (1A) of section 19bis.

The proposed section (1A) provides that one may not appeal to a court, as well as that the Minister need not furnish any reasons.

Now there is a point to which I want to draw the attention of this hon. House. The persons against whom steps may be taken in terms of the proposed subsection (1)(b) are persons with South African citizenship who do nothing whatsoever, but whose actions, in the opinion of the Minister, are not in the public interest. However the person who in terms of the provisions of the proposed subsection (1A) performs a voluntary action—the Bill refers to a voluntary action—is in other words dealt with more leniently.

I am one of those persons who believe that every South African can be proud of his South African citizenship. Ours is a unique country. To a certain extent there are in South Africa—and I admit this—certain customs, moral standards and institutions which are probably not acceptable to the average South African. But if we lump together the good and the bad of South Africa we find that every South African citizen can in fact be justifiably proud of his South African citizenship. Citizens of this country have made contributions, not only to our own nation but to the continent of Africa and to the world of which we may be justifiably proud. But what do we find? In spite of these contributions by South African citizens to the world we find ourselves in a hostile world which derives great pleasure from disparaging, attacking and berating South Africa.

You do the same.

Now an hon. member has just said—I do not know which hon. member it was: You do the same. I think it is an absolutely disgraceful thing to say. The world is constantly looking for a stick with which to beat South Africa. We who love South Africa accept the fact that one is not always able to disarm one’s enemies, particularly not the enemies we have in a hostile world. Under the present circumstances I regard it as being the absolute height of recklessness to place weapons in the hands of our enemies unnecessarily. The hon. member for Rissik asked what we meant by action which is in the “public interest” for we always say that we, the United Party, stand for the “public interest” and that we want to protect South Africa, and he questioned this. I think the time has come, particularly when seen from the point of view of this argument, when it is reckless to place a stick in the hands of our enemies unnecessarily. I want to go so far as to say that in my opinion thé hon. the Minister, with his legislation, is not at at present acting in the public interest in South Africa. In other words, with this specific legislation he is in reality placing a stick in the hands of our enemies unnecessarily. It is in view of this that I ask him to reconsider this matter. After all, what is it going to avail us to deal severely with people in this way in South Africa, people against whom we cannot otherwise take action? After all, when the hon. Minister spoke of drugs and drug pedlars, he did make it clear that he could take action against an ordinary South African citizen, and he also made it clear that he could also take action against any person who was not a South African citizen. Do the means justify the end now? We find that the citizenship rights of one country are something which immediately attract attention and this must be of importance to immigrants or to potential immigrants. In other words, we must to a large extent accept that the specific provisions of this legislation are going to be studied thoroughly by people beyond our own borders. It would be the easiest thing for a person who is hostile to South Africa to associate this legislation with other laws in South Africa which are already being used by the enemies of South Africa. For that reason I now want to say to the hon. Minister that if he really loves South Africa, he will, in my opinion, reconsider this legislation, for this specific legislation which we have before us is simply going to place a stick in the hands of our enemies with which they can be labour us. We have already heard that people can draw comparisons with the 90-day and 180-day legislation. It could be said that at one stage in South Africa one could simply be detained in a prison without trial. Under the provisions of this legislation people may not only be detained without trial and without access to the courts but may also be banished for good from the country, not because there is anything they can do about it but quite simply as a result of an historic event in the country in which they were born. If that type of argument is used against South Africa, where do hon. members on that side of the House stand, and where do hon. members on this side stand? Who must then accept the responsibility for that? Must we accept the responsibility and say that we have failed in our task of pointing out to the hon. the Minister that this is something which will be used against South Africa?

We shall accept the responsibility.

I believe that the most important consideration for a person should be: What should my actions be in the interests of South Africa? I think that, under the present circumstances, one should do nothing which will give the enemies of our country an additional weapon. Unfortunately I regret that, as this Bill reads, it will simply be grist to the mill of the enemies of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central has now, in a typical manner, tried to place a stick in the hands of the enemies of South Africa. This Bill will not place any stick in the hand of any enemy of South Africa. Yet the hon. speaker who has just resumed his seat, as well as the hon. member for Port Natal, who was the previous speaker on his side, tried in typical United Party fashion to create suspicion in the outside world with the “obscure intentions” which are supposedly behind the Government’s actions now, as they did at the time when the original Act was passed, as they have done with all the laws which have been directed at South African citizenship, at South Africa’s own identity and at South Africa’s symbols. This is typical United Party behaviour! It is fortunate that one can say nothing further but that the hon. member made a typical United Party speech in this House, and that owing to his position in the House little notice will be taken of it outside.

Mr. Speaker, citizenship is pre-eminently a question of domestic importance. It is a domestic matter. It is not something in regard to which other powers pronounce judgment, for example when one adopts certain measures in regard to citizenship or when one imposes certain requirements in regard to it. We did not say to the United States of America, to Great Britain or to any power in the world, that they should impose this or that requirement for citizenship, or that they may in this or that manner deprive any person of citizenship. There are in fact powers, although I do not know which powers these are, who do not allow dual citizenship. The hon. member for Port Natal, as well as this hon. member, were concerned about the question of dual citizenship, but I am convinced that a person may forego the citizenship of a country, whatever the laws of that country may say. Such a person may come to South Africa add say: I forego my citizenship of that country. I almost fell off my bench here when I had to hear that there is a man sitting in this House of Assembly, the hon. member for Port Natal, who is still a British citizen. [Interjections.] He said himself that he is a British citizen. That shows clearly why he does not want to learn another language. He still keeps to his English language. He does not even want to learn to speak Afrikaans; he wants to resign from the United Party because they wanted to compel him to become bilingual.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

Mr. Speaker, I just have a few minutes …

You have got half an hour.

Very well then, the hon. member may as well put a question.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member why he is not delivering his speech in English.

Mr. Speaker, when the time comes, and I choose my own time—I shall deliver my speech in English. I have delivered many speeches in English when I chose to do so.

Hear, hear! That is exactly what I shall do.

The hon. member can only come so far as to ask a question in Afrikaans. I on the other hand have made many speeches in English, when I chose to do so.

That is right!

I am here and not on the other side of the House.

Hear, hear!

But what about the hon. member who is not prepared after 25 years of Nationalist Party Government, in the 12th year of the Republic, to let his congress take the decision to enforce bilingualism …

For the same reason that you just said you will speak English when you want to.

Order!

I should now like to return to the matter under discussion, namely that of dual citizenship. I am convinced that a person can forego the citizenship of a country, whatever the laws of that country may be.

You cannot.

Of course you can.

You also qualify.

I do not qualify; my father is not an Englishman and what is more, neither my father nor my grandfather was ever a United Party supporter. [Interjections.]

Order! What does this have to do with the Bill?

The hon. member made an interjection in regard to the Bill, to which I merely felt myself compelled to reply.

Mr. Speaker, there have been a great many misconceptions voiced by the hon. gentlemen on the other side of this House in regard to this question of dual citizenship. This was not exemplified better than the hon. member for Bellville. He started off by saying that this legislation had to do with the “misbruik van burgerskap”. It is interesting to hear that, more particularly as there is no mention in the Bill of any “misbruik van burgerskap”. I want to come particularly to his argument on the question of dual citizenship. The hon. member said that one must have done a positive act either to acquire the other citizenship or to keep it. One must have done a positive act either to acquire this second citizenship or to keep it. Now, nothing can be further from the truth than that. One has only to look at the Bill which is before us at the moment. The new section 19bis(1) of the Act, being introduced by clause 1 of the Bill, says that the Minister may deprive a South African citizen of his South African citizenship if he is a citizen who at any time after the commencement of this Act “by some voluntary and formal act in the Union, other than marriage” acquired the nationality of a country other than the Union. There is the first example. If a woman who is a South African citizen marries a foreigner, she can in certain instances acquire that citizenship even if she is strongly opposed to acquiring it. There is nothing whatsoever that she can do about it. That is why in this very Bill an exception is made of the person who acquires this second citizenship by marriage. Likewise a person in the position of the hon. member for Port Natal acquired his second citizenship because by accident of birth he was born in the United Kingdom. He is a person of remarkable qualities, but I am not sure that I would attribute to him the responsibility for his own birth. There is a variety of instances where it can arise that one acquires second citizenship through no overt act on one’s own part. It can be obtained through no overt act on the part of the person concerned. As has been said earlier in this debate it can be obtained against the will of the person concerned because of the legislation, the common law, of the other country in respect of which one has the citizenship. The answer is quite simple and sometime during this debate I thought that the crime was to have dual citizenship. If that is the case, let the hon. the Minister pass legislation against it. Let him prohibit the holding of dual citizenship. Of course, the hon. gentleman knows that he cannot do it, because it is beyond the capabilities of this House and of this Government and of anybody in South Africa in certain instances to prevent the laws of other countries bestowing a second citizenship whether the citizen of South Africa likes it or not. Let us clear up those misconceptions right from the beginning.

The hon. member for Bellville then went on to deal with the guarantee which allegedly exists in this legislation. Well, Sir, I have read it very carefully, and I cannot find anything remotely approaching a guarantee. All there is a clause which says: If the Minister takes the view that it is in the public interest that citizenship be taken away from a person, it can be done. Anything less like a guarantee is difficult to find.

We have for some years in this country been attempting to attract immigrants here, and quite rightly so. Indeed, this hon. Minister, who is piloting this Bill, was the Minister of Immigration. I think I am right in saying that he no longer is. Nevertheless, he had attracted some 30 000 immigrants or more a year to this country. I can think of nothing more likely to chase away immigrants or to prevent them from coming here than the type of threat contained in this clause, because it is a clause in respect of which there is no control other than the will of the Minister.

Then there was the hon. member for Algoa, who referred scathingly to this party, because of legislation passed in 1942 in respect of certain citizens of South-West Africa. Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman is not a lawyer, I can see, but he has been grossly misinformed by some of the lawyers on his side of the House. What are the facts of that matter? The legislation of 1942 did not take away South African citizenship in the first instance. The fact was that certain people had been declared willy-nilly by earlier legislation, of 1924, to be British subjects. Whether they wanted it or not, they were by legislation of this House made to be British subjects. Certain German citizens of South-West Africa were automatically deemed to be British subjects. It may come strange from the hon. gentleman, but only British bias could prompt the thought that this House was doing those persons a disservice by taking away their German citizenship. However, Sir, it was a highly technical situation, where British citizenship was bestowed upon certain German citizens, not by wish of their own, but by legislation of this House pursuant to an agreement between the German Government and the British Government of the time. It is set out in Act 30 of 1924, if the hon. gentleman wants to look at it.

The hon. gentleman then went on to say that citizenship was a privilege. Sir, citizenship by birth—this is so in the case of many of the people with whom we are dealing—is a right, and certainly not a privilege. Now let us deal with those classes of persons that come here as immigrants and have acquired South African citizenship by naturalization. Before they get naturalization, these people are screened. I presume they are screened. We have been told that they are. Indeed, they are screened very closely, and they do not acquire South African citizenship, in the first place, unless they have passed that screening test and have come out as useful persons who would be desirable citizens of South Africa. That is the category of persons you are dealing with, people who have been screened and accepted by the hon. the Minister’s department as worthwhile people to whom South African citizenship can be given.

Some people have a habit of changing their ways sometimes. [Interjections.]

Some people do have that habit.