Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we opposed this Bill at the Second Reading. We opposed it because of the contents of clauses 2 and 3. The hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that we would discuss this matter in the Committee Stage. We moved amendments to clause 2 relating to advertising, relating to what one may in fact say and what the Press may publish in relation to various flights that might be arranged, and the hon. the Deputy Minister turned those amendments down. He did not satisfy us in relation to clause 3, and here we are at the Third Reading, and we have had no satisfaction. We shall oppose the Bill at this stage for those reasons.

What was interesting was that the hon. the Deputy Minister turned down an amendment by the hon. member for Durban Point which provided that advertisements for certain flights should be exempt from the executive actions, the administrative actions, the authoritative actions of the National Transport Commission. What the hon. member for Durban Point proposed was that authority to advertise for certain types of air travel should be granted to “any company, society or organization which satisfies the commission that it intends to arrange a charter flight for the benefit of its own employees or members and their families”, and advertisement in this context means sending circulars, and advertising this type of air travel in the Press. The hon. the Deputy Minister protests that he is not getting at this group. He says that he is not getting at that sort of charter flight, a cheap flight that can be arranged with a recognized air company such as South African Airways or any other airline. By this I mean an arrangement with an airline to provide a cheaper flight than is normal if one can get a block booking. This is done all the time. It is done by the Chambers of Commerce in the various parts of the country. It is done by various professional organizations. It is done by any group having a common interest, whose members can get together to obtain a block booking so that they can get a much cheaper flight to Europe or wherever it may be. This amendment was meant to provide merely that that sort of organization should have not a right, but an opportunity to satisfy the commission. One must work on the basis that the commission is going to be reasonable. But the hon. the Deputy Minister says no, he is not prepared to accept that. He says it is not intended to deal with that situation, but he is nevertheless not prepared to give those organizations and their members and their families the right asked for in this amendment. It is not an absolute right, Sir; it is a right to persuade the commission that they are bona fide.

Then, Sir, it was also proposed that “any person, company or organization which deposits with the commission such moneys or guarantees as may be required by the commission to ensure fulfilment of all obligations offered by such person, company or organization”, should then be exempt from the absolute discretion of the commission in this regard. This is the very thing this Deputy Minister said he wanted to get at, that is to say organizations or travel agents or whoever it may be who took money from people for a particular trip from this country to some other country and then did not fulfil their obligations and went off with the money. How much more reasonable could one have been than we have been in proposing this amendment?

The third part of the amendment that was proposed was that “the provisions of this section …”—that is to say the prohibition on advertising without the permission of the commission—”… shall not apply to any publication, advertisement or offer which refers to journeys originating and terminating outside the borders of the Republic of South Africa”. What happened in the Committee Stage, Sir? The hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that it was not the intention that this Bill should apply to any such flight which originated and terminated outside the borders of the Republic. That is what he says, but when we asked him to say this, to put this in the law, what was the attitude of the Government? They say: “No, we are not going to put that in the law. That is what I say this means, but it is not necessary to put it in the law”. Surely the word of the hon. the Deputy Minister on behalf of this Government can be put into words and into the law? But no, the hon. the Deputy Minister in fact rejected that amendment.

So we have the situation that all the objections raised in that amendment, all the objections raised in the Second Reading and raised in the Committee Stage, are still present, are still unanswered and are still unsatisfied. There is even more objection. The following clause, clause 3, provides that “any person who fails to comply with an order or direction of the commission shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand rand. Mr. Speaker, this is almost unprecedented. The House is being asked to subscribe to the proposal that a breach of the discretionary whim of the National Transport Commission in making directions in relation to licences and in providing conditions which will apply to the grant of licences, should be made a criminal offence. We have been around, in our civilized times, for a long time, and we have learned that the law must be certain. If the law is not certain, then you have either anarchy or you have a form of despotism. Because the law is either certain and known to all and can be applied by the agencies of the court, or it is uncertain, in which case the people do not know what the law is and it cannot be properly applied by those agencies, or you have—what is provided here—not a ministerial right to decree what you can do and what you cannot do, but worse than that; you have a body set up in a statute, a National Transport Commission, which is given that right and, Sir, that body is not even responsible to this House. It is not responsible to this Parliament. The hon. the Deputy Minister was at great pains to point out that this is an autonomous body. Sir, we have heard this often enough from this Government. When one asks them about some State corporations, four of which, according to the balance sheets which they submit every year, deal with more money than this Parliament does in respect of its Railway Budget and its general revenue budgets …

Order! That is not under discussion.

But, Sir, this National Transport Commission is to be given absolute discretion to decide what you may do, whether you may advertise and, where you may advertise; and despite the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister says that they are not going to deal with matters in respect of flights beginning and ending outside the Republic, when we propose that that should be written into the law, that that should be a direction to this body, our request is refused.

It is contrary to what you say.

Sir, the hon. member for Newcastle should look at yesterday’s Order Paper and read the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Durban Point before he makes stupid interjections. Sir, have we really become so administrative-conscious that we have forgotten that normally, in any normal society such as ours, you have the right to do that which you would like to do. You normally have the right to enter into the commercial field or any other field, as you please, unless there are some reasons why you should not do so, in the national interest. What is happening here is this: If you want to operate an air service, you have to get permission; you have to get a permit from the Government, and the Government tells you to go and get that permit from the National Transport Commission. The National Transport Commission may then impose any conditions it pleases. It may give you a permit, or it may refuse you the right to operate in this competitive commercial field. It may give you a licence in its absolute total discretion on such conditions as it may deem fit, and you may not go to court and say that that was not the right decision; you can only appeal to the court against this decision on the basis that the decision was made mala fide, and you can never prove that. The Government has this stranglehold now, but accepting that situation, because that is the law, the hon. the Deputy Minister now comes with a Bill in which he proposes that we should go further than the law now provides. The law now provides that if you breach one of the conditions attaching to your licence to operate a competitive air service—and after all it is a fundamental right to compete in any commercial field—then the commission may cancel your licence. It may revoke it; it may cause you to appear before it; it may do all sorts of things. That is the remedy that the law now provides in the Air Services Act. Surely, Sir, that is enough; surely that is all the sanction you need to implement this law. But, oh no, we now have a Bill which says that, if you breach those conditions imposed by the commission in its absolute discretion, despite the fact that the commission may cancel your licence or may call you before it, or may do anything it likes, you actually commit an offence, a criminal offence for which there is a penalty of a maximum fine of R1 000. And, Sir, it must be remembered that those conditions are laid down entirely in their discretion.

We discussed this matter in great detail in the Committee Stage of this Bill and we asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us an explanation. The only explanation we got from him was that there were no criminal sanctions relating to a breach of the conditions laid down. Sir, what sort of attitude of mind have we now developed? Why should you have criminal sanctions attaching to the breach of a condition laid down by the National Transport Commission in its absolute discretion in respect of the licence that is granted to you? Why should it now become a criminal offence, when they already have the right to cancel your licence? Sir, this is an intrusion into the life of the public, an intrusion for which there is no basis or foundation whatever. If the breach of the condition of the licence, granted in the discretion of the State, was of such a nature that the punishment ought to be a deterrent to the public generally, which is normally the object of criminal sanctions, then one might have understood it, but all we have had from the hon. the Deputy Minister is that we have not got any criminal sanctions in this regard at present and therefore we are going to provide for penalties in this Bill. There has been no explanation for this whatsoever. Sir, this is a matter of principle that we are dealing with. If the Government takes away your right to free competition and says that you can only compete on conditions laid down by the commission and then says that if you breach those conditions you commit a criminal offence, then it is a matter of principle and I ask the hon. the Minister of Transport, if this is the principle to be adopted by his department, is he going to extend it to the granting of every other licence relating to transportation, whether by road, air or rail or sea? Is he going to extend this principle so that if you breach a condition laid down in respect of a road motor transportation exemption certificate, you will also be subject to criminal sanctions? Are you now to become a criminal with a record in those circumstances? Will you now be committing an offence against our criminal law if you breach a condition laid down by one of the local road transportation boards? Sir, the hon. the Minister is silent. The hon. the Deputy Minister is silent. Sir, this is a state of affairs which in itself, even with an explanation, would be bad enough, but without an explanation it is a situation that we on this side of the House will not tolerate and we will therefore vote against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Sir, I cannot really take it amiss of the hon. member for Durban North for having advanced these arguments here, not that one agrees with him, but one cannot but gain the impression that the hon. member is in fact using this neutral Bill simply to find his feet again, to develop self-confidence again, after he was knocked flat here the other day. After all, Sir, it is very clear. During the Second Reading debate the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated very clearly why he needed this measure. I am really unable to understand why it is that the Opposition, today and over the past few days, should have pleaded so stirringly for the existing Act not to be amended. Who must we protect in this connection? In recent times we have had the situation of seeing reports virtually every week in the public press reports written with a welter of words and sometimes illustrated with photographs of empty offices, about these quasi-agencies which have come into being to transport people at low rates. And who are the people who are affected by that, by this office that had been closed down and the woman who disappeared? Who are the people who are affected by that? The whole spirit of this amending legislation purely and simply is to protect the ordinary travelling public and not to eliminate competition for the South African Airways or any other travel service. Now the hon. member for Durban North comes along this afternoon and tries to give an odour to and build up some suspicion against the National Transport Commission. He says that the poor people are now going to be exposed to the whims of the National Transport Commission.

Is it not true?

Now I wish to ask the hon. member whether he is able to furnish any sound reason why he may suspect on good grounds that the National Transport Commission will reject any application by a bona fide agency or a bona fide travel group, except to protect the travelling public in this respect? Now he comes along with the argument that there may be a travel agency in a neighbouring country which wants to undertake a cheap tour from that country to Swaziland or to Luxembourg and then The Cape Times, for argument’s sake, will not be able to publish that advertisement. Sir, I simply cannot see how hon. members can read that into the Bill. This is purely a measure of control over agencies for air journeys and not a measure of control over the Press. In other words, if those agencies do advertise, this Minister has no powers to act against The Cape Times in terms of this legislation and that agency may naturally go ahead with its intended tour, whether it is bona fide or not, because we do not have jurisdiction in a neighbouring country. Where do hon. members get the idea that The Cape Times would be subject to those penal provisions which could possibly be prescribed? Sir, it is a smokescreen that is being thrown up around this legislation to protect someone but we cannot find out who it is that must be protected. I think the public has been crying out for long enough against these malpractices which occur, and for that reason we support this legislation wholeheartedly. Then, if people in their vanity are still prepared to fall for advertisements by these quasi-travel agencies in neighbouring countries, and if they want to run the risk, let them do so, but I do not think we should allow this to continue in South Africa. That is all that this Bill seeks to do.

We on this side of the House are rather sad at having to reject the hon. the Deputy Minister’s first Bill but like the curate’s egg it is good in parts, but the bad parts are very bad, and that is why we must reject it. We appreciate the Minister’s sincerity but what the Deputy Minister has said the Bill means is not said in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill which says what the hon. member for Tygervallei has said. [Interjections.] The hon. member still has the story at the back of his mind that the Bill is intended to protect the public from these fly-by-night agencies, and he says it is quite simple. He says any agency or organization can apply to the commission for a licence, and there will be no difficulty at all. I wonder whether the hon. member has ever applied for a licence from the commission? I wonder whether he has dealt with any agency who have applied for a licence from that commission. Then he will realize the great difficulties they have with this commission. You see, Sir, the main portion of the legislation which we are about to pass is missing. The missing portion is going to be prescribed by regulation but we do not know what the regulations will be like. We are asked to pass the principle, the skeleton, the bones of the law, but the filling will come afterwards in the form of regulations. This is a tendency which unfortunately has developed over a period of time in our legislation; it is not something new. It unfortunately does undermine the legislator to a considerable degree. We are faced with the position that the hon. the Minister of Transport has told us from time to time that it is not his function to interfere with the National Transport Commission. He appointed the commission, but he will never interfere with it. Should we feel that there is abuse by the commission of this particular Act, there is very little that can be done. If the hon. member reads clause 2 very closely he will realize that what he has said here is not entirely correct. No newspaper or any magazine can advertise a tour of the nature which we have described in the course of these debates. The hon. member is wrong. According to the legal people and the opinion of other people who have examined this legislation there is no doubt about it that the legislation is going to put people in a most difficult position. Apart from that, there are also certain aspects which are to be prescribed by means of regulations but we do not know what the provisions of those regulations will be. In order to catch the people whom he is after, the hon. the Deputy Minister is putting an impossible law on the Statute Book. Hon. members on the other side have continually said that the Minister is not after the internal operators; he is after the operators who operate from Jan Smuts to other parts of the world to foreign countries. These are the people whom he is after. He objects to those people advertising in the South African Press, if they are operating outside the country. The hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me that that is the trouble he is having. If we accept what the hon. member for Tygervallei has said—my Afrikaans is baie goed vandag en ek kan die woord reg uitspreek—then it is clear that he is at cross-purposes with the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. member has told us … [Interjections.] I do not know about the “tiger in the tank” or anything like that but I can tell hon. members that he is not going to catch that tiger with this Bill. I am sorry for he hon. the Deputy Minister, because this is the first Bill which he is handling in his present position. We realize that he was stammering a little bit although he was well-versed. However, I think he will improve with the passage of time. He wants us to put a measure on the Statute Book but I am sure that pressure from outside will influence him to have this legislation amended in future. The hon. the Deputy Minister has a dual personality in this House. He is Deputy Minister in regard to Airways as well as Railways. The manager of the Airways will ask him: For god’s sake—if I may use that expression—change this legislation because we are making bad friends with operators overseas.

I should like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he has a good look at this legislation even at this very late stage. I do not think the egg is as good as he thinks it is. We have mixed it up a bit and I am afraid the omelette that is coming out of it does not smell too good. I am asking him, at this late stage, to have another very good look at it and to reject and throw it out when it gets to the Other Place.

Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. member for Salt River, since he has obviously made a much better study of the legislation than the hon. member for Durban North. At least he fully understood what I had said on previous occasions in the House.

He understood it, but he did not accept it.

He has, of course, a little “tiger” difficulty, and I suggest that he should call the member for Tygervallei the hon. member for Tiervlei in the future, which is a much easier word to pronounce. The hon. member for Salt River should not be unduly worried about me; on the contrary, I am quite flattered by the attention I am getting from hon. members on the other side of the House. I want to return to the hon. member for Durban North. Under the rules of this House, I find it rather difficult to repeat my Second Reading debate here at this stage …

You are entitled to.

… because you, Sir, will obviously not allow me to repeat all the arguments which I raised during the Second Reading speech and again in the Committee Stage.

The rules allow you to and you may.

Even if they did, I hope that hon. members will understand what I have tried to put over to them on both occasions.

First of all, I want to refer to the hon. member for Durban Point’s amendments which he has raised once again. During the Committee Stage I said very clearly that I am not prepared to use this Bill to change a principle in the existing law, that principle being that the National Transport Commission is an autonomous body. I am not going to use this occasion or this legislation to have that principle changed at all. If I were to accept the first part of the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point, I would severely limit the autonomy of the National Transport Commission. For that reason …

Is its autonomy unlimited?

For that reason it is quite unacceptable to me.

Is it unlimited?

If ever the autonomy should be changed or the position of the National Transport Commission’s autonomy is in question, other legislation, another measure, will have to be introduced to alter that position. It is not the intention to use this legislation to change that principle. Therefore it is quite unacceptable to me.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? I want to ask him whether the powers of the National Transport Commission are not at present prescribed in Act 51 of 1949. Are they prescribed as to what the commission may do and under what conditions they may do it?

We are dealing here with an existing statute and I can only debate that. I am not prepared to debate principles arising from other Acts.

Under this legislation.

I am debating this and I am not going to use this legislation, nor this particular clause, to change the existing position.

Are there no limitations on its powers?

In this particular instance, most definitely not. That principle is not going to be changed, and over and above that it is not going to be changed …

But you are doing it.

… over and above that it is not going to be changed in the way the hon. member for Durban Point wants to change it. His method is quite unacceptable to me. I tried to make that quite clear in the Committee Stage and I went to great lengths to explain that it cannot be done that way.

The second part of the hon. member for Durban Point’s amendment refers to the deposit of money. I also went to great lengths during the Committee Stage to explain that this matter can very easily be settled by way of regulation.

Oh!

I do not see anything strange about the principle and it is not necessary for the hon. member for Durban North to make funny noises about this. It is not necessary at all.

Who is going to make the regulations?

Who do you think? Why ask such stupid questions?

I do not think that it is expected of me to answer stupid questions asked by somebody who has a sufficiently trained legal mind to know those answers. It is not my duty to give him elementary lessons in his own profession.

And you say that the commission must be autonomous!

Order!

Does that not affect the autonomy of the commission?

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must proceed.

Mr. Speaker …

You can answer it if you want to.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the Rules of the House are quite clear. If the hon. member wishes to put a question to me, he knows the Rules of the House as well as I do.

May I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister? I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether those regulations will not affect the autonomy of the National Transport Commission which he is so keen on guarding?

That question is even sillier than the previous one. I am not prepared to reply to it.

Answer it.

It is obviously quite silly.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister another question? Seeing he did not understand my first question, may I ask him whether he wants the National Transport Commission to be absolutely autonomous, or does he want to restrict it by regulation and stipulate what it may and may not do?

With due respect, Sir, I do not think that that is the question before the House at the moment. I do not think we need debate that. I said clearly that this Bill is not intended to change the existing position. Therefore, I think it is quite unnecessary to debate the question any further.

Why introduce it?

For that very reason the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point was not acceptable to me. As I have said, we are not changing that position. I do not want to have that position changed by this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a last question? Could the hon. the Deputy Minister then tell the House, if this Bill is not intended to change the existing position, why has he introduced it?

As far as this particular matter is concerned, I want to say that if the hon. member would go to the trouble of reading the Bill thoroughly, he would know exactly what is being changed. It is not my duty to explain the Bill and all the principles concerned to the hon. member for Durban North again. Surely he should know it by now.

As regards the question of the deposit of a sum of money by anyone who applies, I have said quite clearly that that can be provided for by means of regulation. I think that adequately answers the arguments of the hon. member for Durban North. I want to say again—and I think that the hon. member for Tygervallei has clearly stated the fact—that we have no jurisdiction whatsoever across the borders of South Africa, anywhere beyond the borders. I think that rules out the third leg of the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point. I think that it is quite unnecessary, quite superfluous: It is not necessary to state that at all.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? May I ask him whether the Publications Control Board may control publications printed overseas but published or issued in South Africa? Is that not similar?

With due respect, Sir, I am not dealing with that aspect at all. I am not prepared to reply to that question. It has nothing to do with this Bill whatsoever. May I state very clearly again what I said in the Committee Stage. If at any stage it is necessary to change the situation which has now been created …

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

I would like to complete my argument first. I will give the hon. member an opportunity later. If at any stage in the future it appears necessary to change the position now being created by this legislation, I will have the freedom of coming back to this House with additional legislation.

You will!

At the moment I have no intention of going any further than was explained very clearly to hon. members. If at any stage it becomes necessary to change the position that has been created, I think there will be ample time and opportunity to come back to this hon. House with additional legislation. Then we can debate this matter further.

I wish to return to the other argument raised by the hon. member for Durban North. During the Committee Stage yesterday I tried to explain why this was necessary but perhaps he did not understand my explanation, perhaps it did not penetrate sufficiently; I do not know. Again he is raising the whole argument which I thought we amply discussed yesterday during the Committee Stage. This particular clause, clause 3 of the Bill, deals only with section 3(1)(d) of the existing Act. For the sake of clarity, may I just read out one portion of that section? Section 3(1) of the existing Act reads as follows—

Then follows paragraph (d)—

This clause 3 only refers to section 3(l)(b) of the existing Act and during the Committee Stage I tried at length to make that quite clear to the hon. member. It intends nothing more. Therefore the existing position is not changed at all, and I thought this was clearly understood. This clause refers only to that particular section of the existing Act. It does not go beyond that. It also does not refer to the new proposed section 2A which is also opposed by the other side of the House. This clause then only refers to the existing section 3 of the Act. [Interjections.] It does not, for example, refer to the granting of licences in the way the hon. member for Durban North sees it.

Then words have no meaning.

It does not apply to (d) of section 3(1) of the Act.

The hon. member for Salt River raised the matter of regulations and may I just explain to him that whatever regulations are passed by the commission, they will be tabled in this House. In terms of the Interpretation Act they can be fully discussed here. If there is anything wrong with the regulations this House, he can rest assured, will have full opportunity of discussing them in detail. I have already explained all the principles concerned and have gone to great length to satisfy hon. members on the other side …

I would like to put a question to the hon. the Minister which, I think, would clear up a lot of the fog on this Bill as far as we all are concerned. What is the position of an operator who operates from, say, Lourenço Marques or somewhere else in the world and who advertises in a South African newspaper? Would he have to apply for a licence?

The reply to that is quite clearly “No”. I have already given that reply on a previous occasion.

Question put and the House divided:

AYES—74: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; De Jager, P. R.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux, and G. P. van den Berg.

NOES—29: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillié, H. van Z.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.: Fisher, E. L.; Fourie. A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hughes, T. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Timoney. H. M.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.;

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

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Forestry Advisory Council has recommended to me that the Department of Forestry should give consideration to the introduction of legislation in terms of which a levy may be introduced on timber in the round. The proceeds of the levy will be applied for research and the promotion of the forest and timber industries.

The draft legislation now before you makes provision for the establishment of a Forestry Council. The object and functions of the proposed Council are clearly defined in the Bill and I do not think hon. members would take it amiss of me if I do not elaborate on these. In general outline the constitution of the Council follows the constitution of the present Forestry Advisory Council. Equal representation is being given to timber growers on the one hand and manufacturers and timber merchants on the other. Apart from these representatives the Department of Forestry, as the largest single timber grower in the country, has three representatives on the Council, viz. the two chief directors who are responsible for the forest and timber industries respectively, and the head of the Department’s division of economy. In addition to this the Department of Industries also has one representative on the Council. Members will note that the Bill makes provision for the appointment by me of a further three members to the Council. At a subsequent stage circumstances may require representation on the council to be offered to bodies which at present do have such representation. It may subsequently even appear to be necessary to expand the representation on the Council of certain interest groups. In order not to have to introduce amending legislation on every occasion when such an expansion may become necessary, the Bill is providing that I may appoint a further three members.

Mr. Speaker, before I leave the discussion of the constitution of the Council, I should like to make it clear for the record that representatives on the Council of the timber growers must be persons who devote their attention mainly to the growing of timber and whose greatest interest is not in the processing spheres of the timber industry.

The Bill provides further that I may, on the advice of the Forestry Council, introduce a levy not exceeding 20 cents per cubic metre on timber. The levy may be imposed on both locally grown as well as on imported timber and imported products of which the principal constituent is timber. Organized forestry in the Republic is agreed that a levy which is imposed on locally grown timber should be distributed equally among the timber growers and the manufacturers or merchants. In the case of imported timber, the timber merchants will bear the full levy. Naturally the levy cannot be recovered from Bantu homelands. In the case of timber which is grown in the Bantu homelands and marketed outside the homelands the timber merchants or the processors purchasing that timber will have to bear the full levy on such timber.

Opinion in the forestry industry is divided as to whether part of the levy may also be applied to bear the administrative costs of associations. I consequently decided that the administrative costs of timber growers’ associations recognized by me may be redeemed from the Forest Industry Fund subject to the timber growers making an additional payment to the Forest Industry Fund by way of a levy. The intention is that this supplementary payment shall be allocated to the existing timber growers’ associations in order to defray their administrative costs. The distribution will be made on a basis which takes into account the surface area afforested by the members of the various associations recognized by me.

The State cannot tax itself, and for that reason the levy as such is not payable by the Department of Forestry. However, the Bill makes provision for the paying over of an amount appropriated by Parliament. Such amounts will be determined by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and myself.

Mr. Speaker, the only other aspect in the Bill which in my opinion requires an explanation is the proposed amendment of section 29(2) of the Forest Act, 1968. It is true that the determination of prices for forest produce is an extremely complicated matter and I consequently requested my Forestry Advisory Council to make suggestions in regard to a formula which may be adopted when making such price determinations. The Advisory Council called in the assistance of a forestry economist and a business economist to help it in its task. The two economists were agreed that basic data on production costs in regard to growers as well as processors were lacking. An effort was made to obtain this basic data on a voluntary basis, but the attempts were unsuccessful. Subsequently the Forestry Advisory Council recommended that section 29(2) of the Forest Act, 1968 should be amended so that growers and processors could be compelled to submit the data. The amendment proposed in the Bill is the result. The information which is expected, as the Bill indicates, and which I am now referring to, is information in regard to production costs, for the most part the prices, etc.; in other words, the kind of information which is so important to obtain an indication of the role which is played in regard to the determination of prices.

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we are prepared to agree to the Second Reading of this Bill, and I may say that we believe that we have really had a part in the principles which are embodied in the Bill before us. The matters which we are dealing with in this Bill, Sir, as you will see in the long title, are the establishment of a Forestry Council and of a Forestry Industry Fund and the right to impose levies in respect of timber and imported timber derivatives. Those are the objects of this Bill. We support them all. But this Bill also makes provision for the manner in which the forestry council is set up, along lines which we have advocated for some years. You know, Sir, there has been a tendency over the past few years for hostile influences to develop in the various segments, which for the purposes of the discussion here today and for the purposes of this Bill and of the Forest Act, we can really roughly divide into three different segments. There is the Department of Forestry under the hon. the Minister, owned by the State and financed by public money; there are the millers and processors, the end-users, the people who take the timber when once it comes from the plantation and when it is fabricated for whatever the purpose may be; and then there are the private growers. In this particular matter the State is in the position that it is, if not the largest grower, one of the largest growers of timber in South Africa. It has large sawmills; it carries on various scientific works, very valuable scientific works, which I do not want to go into here this afternoon because that is just by the way. But the State is a grower of timber and it is a manufacturer and processor. There are three bodies concerned here—the Forestry Department (the Government), the big mills and processors and the private growers. Hostility has been developing within the ranks of those bodies and the growers have been seeking a way to bring the bodies together so that they can all sit down round a table and hammer out the questions which affect timber as a commodity, as something that is grown by the farmers of South Africa and which has to be grown and marketed at a profit. The attempt to get those three parties together by voluntary means has so far not been successful. This Bill, Sir, will give effect to that, and the fact that there is provision for a levy merely means that the funds necessary for the work to be done by that council will be made available. The funds will come from various sources. May I say in passing, Sir, that I am very pleased to see that there will be a levy placed upon the derivatives from imported timber, so that we will not only pay a levy in respect of South African-produced timber while the levy is not paid on imported timber and on the derivatives from imported timber.

The levy will be paid equally by the derivatives from imported timber and from the timber produced in our own country. The Minister has made the point, but I want to reaffirm it, that we cannot make provision here for the levy to be imposed on the State in respect of forest products which they produce, but Parliament will do it through the guidance of the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance, so that there will be money made available, as provided for in this Bill, to go into the funds of the Forestry Council. What we are doing today is to prepare an administrative organization, a body which will bring the three—I almost said warring elements—past hostile elements together because the interests of all three bodies separately are really the interests of all. The interests of the growers are the interests of the State, which wants to see the timber growers flourish. The private growers of South Africa owe a tremendous lot to the State, and we want the supplies from the State forests, because we will be short of timber one of these days. Then we all have our interests in the big factories which are utilizing the timber coming both from the State forests and from the private growers. We have common interests. Now we have a body, a system, whereby we can have a common organization in which all the interests will be represented and where it will be provided that the means for getting the necessary funds be available. If there are surplus funds, they can use it for research, etc., as is provided for here. The general picture is one, I hope, where the past warring elements will now come together because of their common interests, which want to see the timber industry of South Africa flourish for the benefit of South Africa. When once that common interest is recognized I think good common sense will bring these elements together and they will be able to hammer out a method which will provide the best price for the grower so that he can grow timber at a profit, and the best price possible for the manufacturer so that he can make a profit in his business, and for the State to carry on with the work it is doing, which also calls for the best price for its forest products from the State forests, whether they are in the form of pulpwood logs or whether they are saw-logs or sawn timber. The interests of the State demand that we should get the best price. Here now there is an opportunity for the people in the council to get together and to hammer out all the difficulties and problems which arise from the growing and the marketing of our forest products. As far as we are concerned, as I say, we ourselves have recommended, we from this side of the House, in the past the basic principles embodied here. I believe that all the timber interests in South Africa will be very happy indeed to see these proposals which have come forward here. I think I can probably say that the Bill is going to be generally accepted as a very big step forward indeed, a step which can lead to the economic development of the industry with the security for the future which we have not had in any of the years gone by. We support the Bill.

I think it is a wise step for us to have in this the year of 1973, the year of the Green Heritage, a measure of this nature before the House. What is also particularly pleasing, is that in this year, on this occasion, we should have complete agreement in the House on a fine measure such as this. A few distinctive features of this Bill which I should like to mention in brief, are, firstly, the fact that this Bill ensures a certain degree of stability, particularly in favour of the grower, something for which the grower has felt a need all these years. It is a fact that in many respects and as a result of the circumstances to be found in the industry, the grower has felt, sometimes justifiably, that he was being exploited to some extent and that his position was being abused by others in a more favourable position than he. That is particularly true where seen in the light of the fact that a producer or grower who plants trees and carries on forestry operations, does so over a very long term and only enjoys the fruits of his undertaking after many years, after 15 or 20 and sometimes after 30 years. In fact, it becomes a matter of history, and it is for that reason that it is so necessary for a grower or producer, who, in fact, is a farmer, too, to have the assurance at the time he enters this industry and plants his first trees, that one day when he fells his trees after so many years, there will be some stability so that he may be assured of a worthwhile return. There is another aspect involved in this which I welcome. I refer to the fact that the grower and others—I am, however, referring to the grower in particular—are being assured a bargaining power. The grower did not have this power before. This power gives him a degree of control which he will now be able to use. Certain powers are also being given to the Forestry Council and the growers will have representation on that Council. As a result, the grower now has the opportunity to negotiate his own position. I believe that this will be to his advantage in all respects. I think the most gratifying aspect in connection with the powers being given to the Forestry Council, is that this Council is receiving statutory power and executive authority which the old Forestry Advisory Council did not have. Nevertheless, that advisory council did an outstanding job of work. With the powers with which the Forestry Council are now being vested, it will especially be in a position to collect data which will in the first place enable it to exercise, thoroughly and systematically, volume control over planting operations throughout the Republic. The Forestry Council will also be able to make the necessary evaluations in this regard. By virtue of its powers and on the basis of the data it will collect concerning prices, production, etc., the Forestry Council will have the opportunity of submitting price recommendations to the Minister concerning this important commodity in our country, one concerning which we foresee a shortage.

Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. gentleman on the other side for supporting this Bill. I think we are in full agreement that we have reached a very important stage of development in the forestry industry by the introduction of this Bill. What is most heartening is that the Bill is not only being supported by the official Opposition in Parliament, but that it has the full support also of all the different bodies concerned with the forestry industry in South Africa. Two years ago I did not think that it would be possible to come to Parliament with a Bill of this nature and to have the support of the whole industry. I am very happy that we have reached this stage and may I say that I think it has been made possible by the very good work which the Forestry Council is doing. At this stage I should like to express my thanks and gratitude to the gentlemen who serve on this council, which for two to three years has endeavoured to reach this stage where it is now possible to introduce this legislation in Parliament.

*I want to tell the hon. member who has just sat down that I am grateful to him for making those remarks in connection with the representation of the various sectors. When one comes along with something new and tries to create order in an industry such as this there is always suspicion and the one sector of the industry looks at the other and everyone thinks there is something behind it. These suspicions are the very things which made it impossible for the industry in the past to have roundtable discussions. In pursuance of what was said by the hon. member I want to mention that I myself also think that the composition of this council provides all the various sectors with a guarantee that one sector will not gain unnecessary control as against another, because it is the intention, after all, that the council should be a balanced council that would offer the entire industry balanced representation. The way it is composed here I do not think that there need by any suspicion on the part of one sector in respect of the other on the grounds that the legislation will not guarantee the necessary balance between the various sectors of the forestry industry. If that suspicion should continue to exist as it existed in the past, even the council would find it impossible to do good work. For that reason I am very glad that the advisory council, as it was composed in the past, worked at this point and that the composition of the council is in the interests of the entire industry today.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, we made it quite clear in the debate that took place during the Second Reading of the Bill, on Monday and yesterday, that we were opposed to the Bill. Clause 1 particularly embodies one of the reasons why we are opposed to this Bill. In terms of this clause the Secretary for the Interior would lose control of the powers he was given by this House some years ago. It is submitted by this side of the House that the Secretary should know to whom the powers which he has been given are being delegated. We are being asked this afternoon to do two things. The first one is to agree that the Secretary for the Interior may delegate to a second person the powers which he has in terms of this Bill and also to give to that person the power to redelegate to someone else, who may have the power to redelegate it to a fourth, a fifth or even a sixth person. It is submitted by this side of the House that Parliament in its wisdom granted to the Secretary certain powers, certain obligations and certain responsibilities and that at all times the Secretary should know about the actions which have been taken in terms of the powers and the responsibilities which have been delegated to him. If he is to delegate his power, he should delegate it to someone over whom he has control because, and here is the important point that was made but which was not replied to by the hon. the Deputy Minister, the responsibility remains with the Secretary of the Interior. It remains his responsibility no matter how many times his powers are delegated.

What must I reply to this? This is not a question; it is a statement.

It is not a question of replying. Obviously the hon. the Minister is quite happy to have this situation.

Of course.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says “Of course”. He is prepared to have the situation whereby the responsibility which is given to the Secretary for the Interior by this House can be passed on to other people without the Secretary for the Interior knowing about it.

That is physically impossible.

The hon. the Deputy Minister must not be silly. He misses the point. He says it is a physical impossibility, but it is not a physical impossibility. A minute ago he admitted that it was possible. Now he says it is a physical impossibility. How is it a physical impossibility? The Secretary for the Interior delegates to a second person and that second person delegates to a third. Must he report back to the Secretary for the Interior?

No.

Must he report to the Secretary for the Interior to whom he has delegated the authority?

The Secretary can withdraw his delegation in the first place.

That is quite possible, but it may be too late by then. The power will already have been delegated and the action will have been taken. That is exactly what we are being asked to do this afternoon. The actions have been taken and we are being asked today to rectify 20 years of misgovernment. This clause is also retrospective to 1953, in terms of clause 6. This side is utterly opposed to the handing over of the powers which the Secretary has, and they are very, very great powers in terms of this Bill, as the hon. the Deputy Minister will admit. Not only the powers to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred which he wishes to use for the purpose of the Bantu Reference Bureau, but all the powers he is given in terms of this legislation can be transferred and can be redelegated to a third, fourth and a fifth person. This is our objection—it does not remain under the control of the Secretary for the Interior.

That is nonsense.

I cannot accept that the hon. member for Christiana is really talking sense; I cannot accept that he really believes what he says now.

Of course I believe it.

If the hon. member believes it, he can get up just now and argue this matter in a proper manner so that we can understand what he is saying. It is quite clear from this and the hon. the Deputy Minister admits that the Secretary for the Interior loses control. Nevertheless he still carries the responsibility, and that is why we oppose it.

How can he lose control if he himself is the person who delegates these powers initially? He can withdraw the delegation.

Yes, he can withdraw his delegation, but when does he learn that he should withdraw it? After all, the second party is given the power to redelegate to a third party and the hon. the Deputy Minister admits that it is not necessary that the consent of the Secretary for the Interior should first be obtained for that. So, how does he know that he must withdraw it? This is our whole point. We say that he loses control but retains the responsibility. I ask again the question which I asked yesterday afternoon: Is it fair on the Secretary for the Interior?

There is another point I wish to raise. The definition of “Secretary” now reads—

That means any person employed by the Department of the Interior. This is the point made by the hon. member for Green Point and to which we have had no reply from the hon. the Deputy Minister.

[Inaudible.]

I cannot hear. This is the point—any person in the employ of the Department of the Interior now means the “Secretary”. The definition of “Secretary” includes all employees of the Department of the Interior, and that this is to be retrospective …

Not necessarily.

It cannot be “not necessarily”; either it is or it is not. I think we must ask the hon. the Deputy Minister today why he has asked for these provisions. He did not really give us an answer to this in the Second Reading debate. What has been done within this Department or within the Bantu Reference Bureau that now he has to take these powers in this Bill?

Mr. Chairman, as a mark of our objection to this, I move—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District argues in the same circle as the hon. members on that side of the House argued this afternoon. It is a very simple thing the hon. member apparently cannot understand, i.e. how does one find out when one has delegated one’s powers. This hon. member must just do a little investigating and have a look in common law at what it means when one delegates powers. No person can delegate any power he does not have. One can delegate no more or no less than one has. I know the hon. member will shake his head, but he may shake it even harder; it will make no difference to the argument. The harder he shakes his head, the less we will hear what is going on. The Secretary for the Interior cannot delegate more powers than he has. He delegates his powers in terms of the Act and in terms of regulations that exist. Those powers which he delegates are then transferred to the Director of the Bantu Reference Bureau. That is the simple answer to the hon. member’s question. With due respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister I can tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District that we could never accept as foolish an amendment as that of the hon. member, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. The hon. member does not understand that this paragraph had to be introduced because, as already stated yesterday, we want to put right that Reference Bureau’s past work. We are now doing so, and at the same time we are also creating legislation so that the problem of delegation is solved once and for all, and so that problems that may possibly have cropped up in the past are legalized. Therefore we simply cannot accept the amendment.

Then there is the question of the Bantu Reference Bureau. The Secretary quite simply delegates his powers to the Director, and that Director can in turn delegate his powers.

How does he control its application.

How does this hon. member’s electorate control him? He also delegates powers, and how does he find out if mistakes occur when he has delegated powers? How does the Prime Minister find out? How does a Minister find out if mistakes occur when powers have been delegated? There is no modern democracy in existence that can function properly if powers cannot be delegated. That is quite simply the position, and the simple question to the hon. member is: How does he find out, if he has delegated powers, that a mistake has occurred? It is so simple that one does not even want to argue about it. The Director of the Bantu Reference Bureau further delegates his powers, and for the hon. member’s information he finds out, in the same way as the Secretary for the Interior does, when there are mistakes. It is a very practical matter, and it is no use saying about this clause now that it is an impractical one because one cannot find out when powers, which one has delegated, have not been exercised properly. This is surely very simple, and I think the hon. member has not taken this point a foot further with his arguments today. I think the hon. member is wasting our time.

Mr. Chairman

Oh no, not again!

The noisy members opposite are going to hear an awful lot from us this afternoon and it is no good their objecting, because this is the normal process of democracy. Let us at least go through the motions. The hon. member for Christiana comes with an absolutely puerile argument this afternoon about how the Secretary for the Interior keeps control. He says that they are asking for powers to rectify an error—I will deal with this later—which has been compounded over the last 20 years. He says the Deputy Minister is asking for the Secretary to have the power to delegate certain powers to the Director of the Bantu Reference Bureau. That is all right. It is fine; so far so good. Up to this stage the Opposition has no objection whatsoever. But the objection that we do have is that the director of the Bantu Reference Bureau may further delegate the power that is exercised by the Secretary for the Interior in terms of this Act to another official in his department. This is an official over whom the Secretary for the Interior has no control whatsoever. If I only could get that into the thick head of the hon. member for Christiana! This is what he does not understand.

I understand it; you are the one who does not understand it.

If the hon. member understands it does he accept the principle?

Yes, of course.

He accepts the principle. Well, then it is all right and we disagree on principle. As far as we are concerned we believe that this is a bad principle in law and I believe that it is bad in practice too, because the responsibility is given to one man by this House, namely the Secretary for the Interior. He hands over …

Talk about the principle.

Order!

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He hands over that responsibility to somebody else and up until now that responsibility has been handed over to a person under the control or direction of the Secretary for the Interior. But now we are being asked for this power to be handed over to somebody beyond the control and direction of the Secretary for the Interior.

I hope the hon. member is not going to repeat that argument again because it has been used three times already.

No, Sir, I am not going to repeat it. I am hoping that those two noisy gentlemen might get it into their heads. We have made it quite clear that we are opposed to this and that we will vote against it. I want to say too that we are not looking at this clause in vacuo. We are looking at this clause together with clause 6, which we will discuss a little later, which makes these provisions retrospective for 20 years. We want to know what we are being asked to cover up this afternoon. What errors have happened? What has happened that we are now being asked to cover up? This is an error of 20 years’ standing which has been compounded over and over. It does not only refer to the issue of Bantu reference books, because it applies to the whole Act. We told the hon. the Deputy Minister during the Second Reading what he should do. We told him to scrap this and accept the amendment as moved this afternoon by us to omit this paragraph (b). The hon. the Deputy Minister should rather bring special legislation, perhaps by way of the General Law Amendment Bill which will come later during this session, to validate the actions which have been taken, incorrectly taken, over the last 20 years. He could then make provision for future delegations.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is adopting a standpoint which is actually in conflict with the whole principle of delegation. If this House trusts the Secretary for the Interior to delegate powers, the House also trusts that the Secretary for the Interior will only delegate powers to a person who will properly handle the further delegation of powers. Powers allocated to a government involve a question of trust. This House gives the Secretary for the Interior certain powers because it is confident that the Secretary for the Interior is able to exercise those powers properly, fairly and justly. This means that when the Secretary delegates powers, he will delegate such powers to a person who will properly be able to exercise those powers. If those powers include further delegation, it means that the Secretary will delegate powers to a person who in his turn will make proper use of his powers of delegation. What is so difficult about that? If the hon. member is serious in what he says, he should actually be voting for this clause. He says that the Deputy Minister should delete this clause and come to light with another clause to legalize future actions. But this clause already makes provision for that. If the hon. member is saying that the hon. the Deputy Minister must come to light with the clause to legalize future actions, how else would the Minister motivate this than specifically in the way it is motivated in clause 1(b)? Tell us this. I challenge hon. members. If future powers or delegations must, in fact, be arranged properly by way of legislation, how can it be done other than by clause 1(b)? This means that the hon. member’s objection is not to clause 1(b). His real objection is to clause 6, which makes the whole provision of retrospective effect. The hon. member has no objection to this provision. Sir, the question of government always includes delegation; it is a question of trust. It is a principle that is applied day after day. I am sorry to say that the objections and criticism of hon. members on the opposite side of the House have no substance whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, lots of wonderful words have been used and marvellous theories have been advanced, but this is a very, very important amendment.

There is no change in the Act.

Mr. Chairman, must I ask again, as I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport during the discussion of the first Bill that was before us this afternoon: If there is no change, then tell me, why is the Bill before us? This is a very important amendment. When I see hon. members like those two hon. members there, one from Pretoria and the other from Christiana, sitting in their benches and laughing about a matter as important as the Population Registration Act, then I know that those members must come from the Transvaal. I know that they have no experience whatsoever of one of the most soul-destroying moving and unpleasant things, that one has to deal with, as a public representative, and that is the question as to whether a man who is on the borderline of being White or non-White should be classified as one or the other.

Order! I must point out that the hon. member is now discussing the original Act, and that is not under discussion now.

No, Mr. Chairman, with great respect, I am dealing with this clause, which provides that the Secretary’s powers may be delegated to other persons. It states that the Secretary shall mean “the Secretary for the Interior and includes any person employed by the State or the holder of a post in the Public Service acting under a delegation from or under the control or direction of the Secretary for the Interior …”. Now, Sir, these words are added: “Or any person acting under a delegation from or under the direction of the Secretary for the Interior”. So, Sir, I am dealing with the powers this person is to have. I want to tell this Committee that these are not powers which should be delegated any further. They should certainly not be delegated in the manner in which this clause proposes they should be delegated. I want to bring some reality back in this regard. This is not a matter of words. It is not a matter of the principle so well-known to those two hon. gentlemen on that side of the House who have just spoken, the old maxim of delegatus non delegare potest, which means that a person who has delegated authority is not entitled to delegate further, unless of course the law says that he may. Here it is provided that this may happen. Not only may it happen that the Secretary for the Interior may delegate powers, but it may happen that a person employed by the State or the holder of a post in the Public Service, acting under a delegation from or under the control of the Secretary for the Interior, may delegate his powers. Mr. Chairman, what we are dealing with here is not just a question of who is delegating administrative powers to whom; we are dealing here with the power of life or no life in South Africa. Sir, there are no hon. gentlemen who sit in this House who have dealt with population registration cases who will gainsay that what I have just said, expressed rather boldly perhaps—it might even appear to be extravagant—is nevertheless an expression of one of the facts of South African life. There are many of those people that one deals with who come to one for help and one does what one can do in order to get their classification changed from, let us say, Coloured to White because they have lived as White all their lives and because their children at that moment are attending White schools. They very often say to you, “If I am classified as Coloured, I will have to leave the country, because I cannot live in these circumstances if I am classified as a Coloured because I am accepted as a White person.” Sir, this is not new. This has been going on in our country since 1950 when this Act was first introduced and when the test was what it should be now, namely that you are a White person or a Coloured person if you are either that in appearance or if you are generally accepted as such.

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

I am coming back to it, Sir. There is a large sphere in which a discretion resides with the Secretary for the Interior [Interjections] … and I ask hon. gentlemen over there who are making these noises whether they have ever looked at this Act that we are now amending. If they do, they will find that the Secretary for the Interior is charged with a most important power, to determine whether a man lives the life that he has been living all his life, or whether through being declared non-White he is subjected to some other life that he knows not and therefore prefers to leave the country. Sir, if you look at the Act, you will find in section 5 that the Secretary for the Interior has certain very important powers. If at any time it appears to the Secretary that the classification of a person in terms of subsection (1) is incorrect, he may, after giving notice and affording the person concerned an opportunity of being heard, do certain things. Then you find in section 5(4)(c)—

“In his discretion.” Sir, I want to say that the decision made in terms of the power that reposes in the Act at the moment is, so far as these persons are concerned, perhaps the most important decision that could ever be made in their lives. Whether they are sent to goal by a judge for murder for life, or whether they are classified by the Secretary for the Interior as White or Black, means exactly the same thing. In some cases the decision of the Secretary for the Interior would be worse, and it is now proposed that that decision should be delegated not just to a person under the control of the Secretary, but to a person to whom the power has been delegated by the Secretary for the Interior to delegate his powers. And, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister put his finger on the spot when he said: “How can the Secretary lose control if he is the person to delegate?” I want to say that what has been delegated here, is the power of the Secretary for the Interior, which is the power to determine whether you are White or not. That is the exercise of a discretion. Now, you cannot delegate the exercise of a discretion to someone and say you are still in control, can you? You have the discretion to determine something and then you delegate it to someone else. You delegate to him the power in his discretion to do what he wants.

You are in control of the delegation.

Very well. Then I want to say this. Either you are delegating the discretion or you are not. If you are not delegating the discretion, then it means that the Secretary for the Interior, on the hon. the Deputy Minister’s argument, in every case in which the discretion of the delegatee is exercised, has to come back to the Secretary for the Interior and to say: That is the discretion I want to exercise in this case; do you agree or do you not? In other words, the Secretary for the Interior, on the Minister’s argument, would have to look at every single case and all the facts and decide whether he in his discretion would have exercised his discretion in that way. In other words, how can you delegate a discretion? It is either a discretion or it is not. [Time expired.]

I think I must speak to our hon. learned friend. Perhaps he will understand me as a layman. The hon. learned gentlemen do not understand each other. That is what I think. That is the only reason why the hon. member argues the way he does. I think if he understood it he would argue quite differently. [Interjection.] I do not want to argue with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, because he does not understand anything. Let me say this to the hon. member for Durban North. This amendment in respect of delegation has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with race classification as far as Coloured persons and White persons are concerned. It has nothing to do with the issuing of identity documents as far as White persons and Coloured persons are concerned. It has absolutely nothing to do with the changing of the register as far as identity documents are concerned. Let me read to the hon. member what the Act states in respect of the register and in respect of identity documents. As far as the changes are concerned, this rests in no one’s hands but those of the Secretary and the people to whom he can delegate the powers; and he may delegate them all down the line, to the tea-boy if he wants to be that foolish, as the hon. member said yesterday. As far as the identity documents are concerned, he may delegate them down the line to the tea-boy, as long as he just mentions the tea-boy by name, if he wants to be that foolish. But we are not children. It is his responsibility. So much for Whites and Coloureds and identity documents. But this delegation has nothing to do with identity documents in the true sense of the word, except in so far as Bantu reference books are now, in terms of the definition, provisionally being regarded as identity documents under this Act, until the Bantu one day obtain their own identity documents. Does the hon. member now understand it? Sir, at the moment the Bantu do not have identity documents, and they will not be getting any for a long time. But for the purposes of the Act the reference books of Bantu are now being included in this definition as identity documents. And the Secretary for the Interior does not issue reference books to Bantu. It is not his work. How would he and his department be able to do so? They do not have the information. But what is now happening is that for the purposes of issuing reference books he can delegate the powers, which he has in respect of the Whites, Coloureds and other race groups for issuing them with identity documents, to the head of that department, and in the same way as the Secretary he can also delegate the powers to his subordinates. However, it is not a vital matter as far as Whites and Coloureds are concerned, as the hon. member quite dramatically tried to imply. It has absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with that. I think the hon. member now understands, and I think the hon. member for Von Brandis also understands it. The hon. members must just make this distinction and then all the objections they have fall away.

Would a person, who under this delegated power issues a reference book to a Bantu, who is already classified as a Coloured, not change that person’s classification as a result of that?

This matter has nothing to do with the issuing of identity documents.

But a reference book is, in fact, an identity document.

The head of the Bantu Reference Bureau does not issue identity documents. That is specifically the aspect of the matter which the hon. member for Durban Point does not understand. That bureau does not issue identity documents; what it issues are Bantu reference books, and for the purposes of this legislation the Bantu reference book is provisionally being regarded as an identity document.

That is specifically the point.

But he will not issue an identity card or document as the hon. member for Durban Point proposes; he is strictly going to confine himself to the issuing of Bantu reference books.

Which is in fact, an identity document.

I think the hon. members must concede that it would have been very wrong if the Department of the Interior had to concern itself with the issuing of reference books for Bantu.

Which can merely be obtained on request.

Exactly. This problem, which the hon. member for Durban Point sees, can only arise if a person with a reference book comes to the department and says that his reference book indicates that he is a Tswana, but that he also has an identity document that indicates that he is a Coloured. I think that is the problem the hon. member sees.

Yes, my problem arises with the issuing of those documents.

The issuing of identity documents took place through the Secretary for the Interior, while the issuing of reference books took place through the Bantu Affairs Commissioner. It was issued to that Bantu at his request. How else would he have obtained it? He came and asked for it, of course. Did they, when they noted down in the reference book that he is a Tswana, merely look at his face and guess that he is a Tswana? No, he came and asked for the book and then said that he is a Tswana. I think the hon. members are arguing from completely false assumptions.

Order! Before I call upon the hon. member for Durban North to speak, I want to point out that we are concerned here only with the delegation and the resultant further delegation of certain powers. The question of reference books and similar documents is not relevant at all. I allowed the hon. member for Durban North to refer to the principal Act, for the purposes of completing his argument, to indicate with what important powers the Secretary is being vested. I subsequently allowed the hon. member for Parow to reply to that argument. Now I want to point out to hon. members that from now on they will have to confine themselves to the particulars of the clause; I shall not allow them to raise old arguments.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard so often in this House, as we have heard this afternoon from the hon. member for Parow, what it is that he thinks, or someone else thinks the purpose of the amendment is, what he thinks or someone else thinks the Government is going to do, and what he thinks or someone else thinks, in fact, an official who is there right now is going to do.

It is in this Bill.

Then my hon. friend says that it is in the Bill. What does this amendment do? It defines who the Secretary for the Interior is. Why do you have to define who the Secretary for the Interior is? It is because the words “the Secretary for the Interior” are used throughout the Population Registration Act. The purpose of having a definitions section in an Act, I may tell the hon. member for Parow, is so that you can define and so that you will know who it is that is being referred to. Usually the definitions section, as in this case, is there in order to give a wider meaning to an expression like, for example, “the Secretary for the Interior”, rather than the Secretary for the Interior personally. This is what is now being done. The definition of “the Secretary for the Interior” is not only someone to whom the Minister delegates, but someone who is delegated by someone he has delegated as the Secretary for the Interior. The whole point of this is so that the Secretary for the Interior himself, personally, does not have to deal with every single conceivable function anticipated in the Act. With great respect, one cannot discuss this clause, and one cannot discuss who is to exercise the powers of the Secretary for the Interior without having some regard to those powers. So far as the hon. member for Parow is concerned, White and Coloured is a subject he knows something about. Therefore he says: “Don’t worry, it is not going to be done in respect of them.” That may be, but it is going to be done in respect of Bantu, he said.

Order! I think the hon. member must come back to this clause.

Yes, Sir, I am referring to that clause. What I am saying is that it is now proposed that the delegatee of the powers of the Secretary for the Interior may in fact—the hon. member for Parow has let the cat out of the bag—be in another department altogether. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me how he, the Secretary for the Interior, is going to exercise control over the Officials in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, which it would seem now is what this is intended to do? I want to say that the remarks I made about being classified Coloured or White apply equally to being classified Tswana or Coloured. Perhaps the hon. gentleman has no experience of this. The difference is, in the first place, that in the one case you are allowed to be permanently where you are; you are recognized as a person who lives there and who has normal rights there, but in the other case you are not. What kind of power is this that is being delegated to a person not under the control of the Secretary’s department? The hon. the Deputy Minister must answer this. His case is that the Secretary for the Interior never loses control. I want to say that this is nonsense, if the Secretary for the Interior in the definition now means the fellow who decides in his discretion whether you are White, Tswana, Coloured, or whatever the case may be, because there is a discretion that resides there, and he cannot exercise the discretion himself. He has delegated the right to exercise that discretion. This is the point. Perhaps the Deputy Minister will answer us on this point. Is it intended that the discretionary powers of the Secretary should be delegated? If it is intended that they should be delegated, why is he delegating them and still saying that the Secretary is going to remain in control? Obviously someone exercises a discretion. The very word means “in your discretion”; you decide—that is, the person given that power and no one else. It is not an appealable decision. If that is not what is being intended to delegate, perhaps the Deputy Minister will tell us what is being intended to delegate. Having told us that, I am sure he will be able to put into words that which he hopes will be delegated if this becomes law, so that a discretion will not be delegated. In other words, do not come here and say that “Secretary for the Interior” means all this, but I do not wish to apply it in this way or that way. Come to us and say exactly what power it is you wish to delegate. Then we will consider it. To give carte blanche in a law dealing with a subject matter such as this, is beyond the conscience of those of us who have had to deal with persons in this situation. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will get up and give us a better answer than the answers we have had so far from the hon. gentlemen in the back-benches on that side.

Mr. Chairman, I just first want to tell the hon. member for Durban North that he was apparently not in the House yesterday during the Second Reading of this Bill. The question the hon. member is now asking me, I replied to fully in the Second Reading. I have no intention whatsoever of holding another Second Reading speech about the merits of this matter. I am merely going to confine myself to the delegation aspect.

Did you deal with discretion?

I am going to refer the hon. member to my Second Reading speech for his answer.

You did not deal with my point about discretion?

I am going to confine myself to the position in respect of full delegation. To listen to hon. members, one would say that we are dealing here with one of the most junior officials in the Public Service. In reality, we are dealing here with the most senior officials of the department.

That is no excuse.

We are dealing here with the most responsible official of the department. He is being empowered to delegate powers. Let me just mention an example of a case of delegation. There are 14 million Bantu who must be classified. The hon. member himself said a moment ago, with respect to that delegation, that it is impossible for a person to do it all by himself. He must delegate his powers. To whom does he then delegate his powers? We just take the Bantu as an example. He delegates his power to almost the same kind of responsible official, who has as high a status as he has, in the other department. That is what he does so that this work can be done.

Now the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District asks where the control is that he must exercise. What control can he exercise as far as the work itself is concerned? The work as such is prescribed in the Act. That is how simple it is. The hon. member ought to know that. He comes along here and asks how the classification is done. He would do well to go and read section 5. Then he would know how classification is done, because there is a provision about classification. His control lies in the fact that he has delegated his powers, and if any complaints are forthcoming from any quarter, he would immediately institute an investigation and he can withdraw his delegation. Even if he were to receive complaints, such as those the hon. member for Durban Point unnecessarily flung across the floor of this House, he may do so. That is the control he has over the delegation of powers. It is the ordinary control that anyone has over a delegation of powers. Once one has delegated work to a person, one surely cannot go and sit next to that person and say: Man, I have now delegated the work to you, but now I am going to stand here next to you and see that you carry out the delegated powers correctly. That can surely not be what the hon. member means.

You surely know that that is nonsense.

If one has delegated work to another person, one must accept that he will evidence sufficient responsibility to exercise the delegated powers properly. When he does not do so, or when there are any reasonable grounds for believing that those powers are not being exercised properly, one withdraws the delegation. That is one’s control; that is one’s power over him. Let us now go further with this delegation. The issuing of documents are always subject to appeal. That hon. member knows this, or he ought to. Even the initial issuing of an identity document is subject to appeal to the highest courts. I think the arbitrary business. Just for the record, because I am now going to resume my seat, since I think I have replied to everything, I want to tell the hon. member that as far as section 5(4)(c) is concerned, the one he keeps coming back to so frequently, no power of delegation is being given. The Secretary does it himself.

Now you are changing the definition.

I am not changing the definition at all, but one cannot rectify the definition with bits and pieces of delegation. One gives a responsible official the right to delegate. One surely cannot prescribe to him who he must delegate to. One gives the person the right to delegate and he then delegates to other responsible persons. The other question the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District asked, which falls completely outside the clause, I shall reply to when that respective clause is discussed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to try to approach this problem from a slightly different angle and without traversing the ground which I think is already a matter of agreement between the two sides. We are agreed that the powers to be exercised are important. We are agreed that delegation is necessary. Delegation in certain circumstances is a very necessary thing. What we are concerned about on this side of the House is the nature of the delegation.

A delegation of authority includes two different aspects. It includes the aspect of function and it includes the aspect of responsibility. As far as the function of delegation is concerned, it has been argued by various hon. members on that side of the House that it is necessary in view of the nature of the jobs to be done and in view of the multiplicity of the jobs to be done, that numerous people should be employed and that, therefore, the Secretary for the Interior must have the right to employ a sufficient number of subordinates to do the job for him. We agree with this, but what we are concerned about is whether he maintains his responsibility during this process as defined in this subsection. As the subsection stands, it says that the Secretary for the purpose of the Act means anyone in the public service acting under delegation from somebody acting under delegation from the Secretary of the Interior. So you have a sort of a three-tier stage. We believe that functionally it is perfectly possible for the Secretary of the Interior to delegate to somebody, who then delegates to somebody, and so on ad infinitum. Functionally this, of course, can be done. But what happens to the responsibility? In the exercise of important powers and the allocation of important powers to the Secretary for the Interior, and we are agreed that these are important powers, we want to see that the principle of responsibility is maintained. Now, if the definition of Secretary means anybody in the Civil Service acting under delegation received from somebody else who is acting under delegation, then there is a chain reaction, but not a chain reaction of responsibility. It says “any person in the Civil Service acting under delegation” and it may be a person from another department, a postmaster, for instance. If such a person has received a delegation from the Secretary of the Interior and he can in terms of that delegation again transfer it to somebody entirely different, the chain of responsibility has been broken. The hon. member for Parow argues that the word “Secretary” means different things at different times, but in this Act the word “Secretary” has a definition. This definition has now been broadened to include all these categories of people who are not in a direct chain of command. Now, if the purpose of the Minister is purely efficient administration of the Act, it can be achieved quite simply. The Minister could arrange for powers of delegation to be given to the Secretary for the Interior. The Secretary for the Interior could have the right to delegate responsibility to some other persons. Now, if these other persons need subordinates—this I think is the hon. the Minister’s problem—to do the job, it is perfectly feasible for these first persons to go to the Secretary and say: “Look, we need help. Will you give direct authority to some other persons whom we will propose to you?” The Secretary for the Interior then satisfies …

What is the difference functionally?

There is an important difference and I am coming to that. The Secretary for the Interior, the person to whom the first authority was given, then has to satisfy himself that these second generation officials are acceptable to him and that they will exercise the authority in a proper manner. This would mean that the nexus of responsibility from the Secretary to the person who do the job is unbroken. Under this definition in the Bill that nexus of responsibility can be broken and will be broken. That is exactly where the system breaks down. I do not wish to drag in another matter, but this was precisely the sort of principle which we were concerned with in the Agliotti case. If once you give a high responsibility to a man he can certainly delegate the function to another and the latter can delegate the function onward to his subordinates. This is a common principle in the Civil Service. What you cannot do with a high responsibility is to shed the responsibility. Once you break the nexus of subordination of direct command so that a subordinate who has received a delegation can, at his own discretion, delegate left, right and down as he pleases, the nexus of control and responsibility breaks down. This is what we are concerned about. I believe that if paragraph (b) were eliminated this purpose could be achieved perfectly simply. The original definition was adequate; it in fact gave the Secretary for the Interior the kind of right which the hon. members on that side are pleading for and which is the right to redelegate. What is does not allow and what this provision in the Bill allows, is a break in the nexus, in the chain of responsibility from the Secretary to the subordinates who eventually do the job. It has been argued by, I think, the hon. member for Pietersburg, that paragraph (b) is necessary to cover up past error. If it is necessary to cover up past error, then I would suggest that an indemnity of some kind would be very much better than introducing as a principle into this legislation a new subparagraph which is basically flawed and wrong in principle. In other words, because of an admission of error we now have to have the introduction of error into the Bill on a permanent basis in order that error may be sanctified and perpetuated. This surely is a principle which is totally unacceptable. I hope very much that the hon. the Deputy Minister will reflect on this. He can achieve his purpose, if it is merely efficient delegation, by striking out paragraph (b) and allowing the Secretary for the Interior to apply his mind to each delegation which is made in his name and on his authority for which he bears direct responsibility. The direct nexus of responsibility is thereby maintained.

Mr. Chiarman, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Von Brandis. I think what the hon. member should do at this stage, is to read the Act, and particularly section 5(5) of the Act, which will give him an indication as to how these delegations are being exercised. This is not done arbitrarily. Hon. members adopt the attitude that the exercising of the delegation of powers takes place in an arbitrary and discretionary manner. There is a real pattern of classification which is laid down in the Act. All that happens, is that the practical aspects of producing reference books are being taken into account. It is quite impossible and impracticable to do what the hon. member for Von Brandis asks us to do. Fourteen million people are involved in this. Teams of people are sent out to various places to hand out reference books. It is being done on request. What the hon. member for Parow said is quite right, namely that it is only done on request. The Department had to make hordes of officials available at certain points to ensure that the demand for reference books could be met. It is quite impossible to bring all those people from other departments to the Department of the Interior in order to furnish them with direct delegation. One must entrust one’s responsible official with responsibility. It is for this reason that the official in the other department is being given the responsibility the Secretary had previously. I want to repeat that the control he exercises depends on the number of objections received in that connection, etc. As soon as he sees that, he will exercise his control and stop that delegation. He will summon that person and tell him: That cannot happen. The department is functioning correctly. There are too many complaints and appeals. I am afraid I have to withdraw my delegation if you do not exercise that delegation I gave you in a more responsible manner.” Our experience is that the delegation which has been granted, has been applied properly. The issuing of all these documents progressed wonderfully, in spite of what hon. members on the opposite side of the House have to say about it. I can only tell you that we must accept—and this side of the House accepts—that when we delegate those powers to a responsible official, we want him to exercise those powers the way we expect him to exercise them, and we have full confidence in him that he will use those powers correctly.

Question put: That paragraph (b) stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—73: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; De Jager, P. R.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.;

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

NOES—29: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillié, H. van Z; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Timoney, H. M.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.;

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

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, if you can hear me over the noise that is going on behind me, I wish to speak on clause 2. [Interjections.] During the Second Reading debate yesterday speakers on this side, and in particular the hon. member for Durban North, made it quite clear that we were utterly opposed to this amendment. We also made it clear, and we reminded the hon. the Deputy Minister, that we opposed this provision in the Act of 1970. Subsection (1) of section 10 of the principal Act places an onus on an individual to notify the Secretary for the Interior of his change of address. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that there are 39 other laws, regulations, promulgations, proclamations, etc., which require the individual to notify his change of address. He also knows that these regulations have never worked and that people have failed to notify their changes of address. That is why in this clause we have the situation where the hon. the Deputy Minister now is trying to place an intolerable obligation on landlords and property owners. He is now placing the onus on the landlord and the property owner which should be, and belongs fairly, on the shoulders of the individual. We believe that he must enforce that obligation on the citizen. Sir, why has this not worked? Why does the individual not notify the Secretary under subsection (1)? Has the hon. the Deputy Minister asked himself that? This Government has not had the courage to apply the provisions of the Act. This Government has repeatedly refused to act against the individual who does not notify his change of address. We had the situation only the other day where a Minister, in reply to a question from this side of the House, said that he had no intention whatsoever of prosecuting any person in terms of the Electoral Act—one of the other 39 that I referred to—because that person had failed to notify his change of address. Sir, as long as this Government is going to be wishy-washy in that respect, they must not come here and ask us to support them in taking the onus off the shoulders of the individual and placing it on the shoulders of the owner or the landlord, as the case may be. I put it to the Minister yesterday, too, that I believe that the system, which has been introduced to the book of life, and that is to have at the back of the book an official card which merely requires the new address to be endorsed thereon and to be returned to the Secretary, is working well. Sir, I want to appeal to him to get on and to issue those books of life and to forget about this sort of regulation. I believe it is wrong to shift the responsibility to the landlord, especially now when you find that landlord faces a penalty of a fine of R100 if he fails to notify the Secretary for the Interior that some other person has changed his address. Why prosecute the landlord when the offence is committed by the tenant?

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to repeat the argument at the Second Reading, but I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to suggest to him that if this amendment which we are now debating is passed, we will still not have solved the problem; we will be back at square one; we will be approaching the problem from a different angle, but we will not have found a solution to it. Sir, as I have said, we discussed this at the Second Reading, and the hon. member for Christiana particularly had a lot to say about how flats worked. He was wrong, of course, as he is so often wrong. I would like to ask his colleague, the hon. member for Vryburg, what he thinks about that hon. member’s arguments and judgment, because according to the Stellelander of the 28th September, “het hy ’n lelike pak slae by hierdie koerant gekry”.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Yes, certainly.

Can the hon. member tell us whether he is aware of the fact that he is quoting a H.N.P. newspaper in support of his arguments?

Order! That is not relevant under this clause. The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

The answer is “no”. This is a newspaper which writes about people who have been talked about and that hon. member has been talked about, Sir, but he does not know what he is talking about, and that is the point I merely want to put on record here.

†Mr. Chairman, having been interrupted by the hon. member for Christiana, about whom people have spoken but who does not know what he is talking about. I want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the present suspension of subsections (2) and (3) of section 10 of the principal Act should continue until such time as either the original population register is starting to function smoothly or until such time as a more satisfactory solution than what is proposed here can be found. There is no point in the hon. the Deputy Minister now calling upon every landlord to submit information on changes of address, when the department has nothing to which to attach that information. He is going to make things even more difficult for the department, because in notifying changes of address he will not even have the basic name to which to attach that information, and in time you will have a collection of people all being reported and recorded as being registered at the same address. It is not going to work. It cannot work in practice. Therefore I suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister maintain the present suspension. The provisions as they are now are suspended. I suggest that he continues the suspension. Let us look at it again. Until then let us leave them hanging like Mohammed’s coffin between heaven and earth, and when we have sorted out some better way of doing this, let the Minister then come with another amendment and let us then look at it. But there is no point in pushing this through unless the Minister will suspend it until it is possible to use even the little information which this amendment will bring in.

Yesterday we debated for quite some time the methods we have to apply to obtain the new addresses of people who have moved to other premises. I think the hon. member for Durban Point will agree with me. We gave him a reasonable hearing; we considered the matter and I think he will agree with me that the methods he suggested are no better than those contained in this Bill. Yesterday I said quite clearly that in my modest opinion—and if any other impression has been created, let me remove it straightaway—what we have here in this clause is the best possible method to deal with changes of address. I say that as far as I am concerned this is the best method to deal with changes of address. But I want to say it again. The department, and I myself, are after all not so dogmatic as to close our ears to any practical suggestions, better suggestions, coming from those hon. members. I believe this is by far the best method one can get under the circumstances, but if hon. members can think up anything better, they can do so with pleasure. Let it be submitted to the Secretary of the department. It will always be considered. But I cannot promise that he will not put these provisions into effect for a certain period of time. I believe that it will be impracticable to put these provisions into effect before sufficient identity documents have been issued to make the system viable. But let me also say this to the hon. member. I cannot commit myself to that here in this House. It depends on circumstances. It may be that we may wish to proceed immediately by way of experiment with these identity documents which we have already issued. I cannot tie myself down to any period, but personally I believe that these sections be put into effect when there are sufficient identity documents to make it a viable proposition.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Yesterday, when we discussed the Second Reading of the Bill, I raised the question with the hon. the Deputy Minister as to how a decision was arrived at concerning the ethnic group of a Bantu. We have here a clause which raises a presumption for the purposes of the Act, that the person concerned is deemed to have been notified on the date on which such reference book was issued to him, that he was classified as a member of the ethnic group indicated in such reference book. Now, I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to take us into his confidence this afternoon. He must tell us why he wishes to have this presumption. Why is it necessary to have this presumption?

You are being ambitious.

I admit I am being a little ambitious but I sincerely hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will take us into his confidence and tell us why exactly he wants this presumption. Because in addition to this we find that this clause now is retrospective to 22nd June, 1956—seventeen years back.

Clause 4 has nothing to do with the amendment.

With respect. Sir, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister misreads the clause. [Interjection.] All right, are we on the same wave-length now? I am glad we are on the same wave-length because otherwise it is no good arguing further. As I say, he must take us into his confidence as to why he wants it and why he wants it to be retrospective to 1956. You know, Sir, as the policy of this Government unfolds, it becomes more and more important to Bantu people that they should be classified in the correct ethnic group. Just imagine what can happen to a Tswana if he is classified as a Xhosa, and even worse, just imagine the disabilities under which a Xhosa will suffer if he is classified as a Zulu.

But how can it be?

That is the question which I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday.

It is just impossible.

How does he arrive at this classification of an ethnic group? The hon. member for Parow is going to tell me in a moment. I am very glad that he will, because the hon. the Deputy Minister could not tell me yesterday. As I say, it is most important for these people that they should be correctly classified. This applies particularly to the Bantu in the urban areas. In terms of this Government’s policy, the Bantu people in the urban areas can only exercise their property rights, their political rights—all their rights, in fact—in a homeland somewhere. That homeland is dependent upon this classification over which we are now raising a presumption, one which I believe is most important to that particular person. If you think of the rights which are enjoyed by the Xhosa and compare that with the rights which are today enjoyed by the Machangana or Tswana or even Zulu, they are nothing like the same. Hon. members on that side will know that the Transkei has progressed further than these other homelands have and that more rights are exercised in the Transkei than in any other area. It is therefore most important to these people that they should be correctly classified into their ethnic groups. However, there is no provision anywhere in the Act and no guidance whatsoever is given to the Secretary for the Interior in whose name the classification is done. It is done in the name of the Secretary for the Interior, but nowhere in this Act is there any guidance given to him as to how he shall determine that particular ethnic group or to which ethnic group a Bantu belongs. In addition, in regard to Government policy in connection with the urban Bantu, we are facing a position today that we have Bantu who have no affiliation with any homeland or any particular ethnic group …

What nonsense are you talking? Where do you find such people?

… because they have intermarried to the extent that unless certain guide-lines are laid down, nobody knows to which ethnic group they belong. [Interjections.] I hear the hon. ex-member for Benoni. [Interjections.] The point is that it is nowhere laid down. It is laid down for a Coloured person, where there are subgroups of Coloureds in terms of the Act, how the Secretary shall determine under which subgroup that Coloured person shall be classified. However, there is no such provision in respect of the Bantu. I should like to ask the clever member on my left: How do we determine it? Does it follow the paternal line or does it follow the maternal line? Does it follow association—the people with whom such a Bantu associates? How do they classify the ethnic group to which a Bantu belongs? These are facts which we should know. This Committee should be aware of the answers to these questions before we decide on this matter, because we are raising a presumption which places the onus on the Bantu concerned to prove that he is not that what is written into his identity document. [Interjections.] It is all very well, these noisy members on my left interjecting. They do not have a clue about what they are talking about. They do not know these people. I do. This is going to worry them and it is worrying them more and more, particularly in the urban areas. I should be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister, the hon. member for Parow, or somebody else, could give me answers to these questions.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District whether he knows how a Bantu obtains a reference book.

He applies for it.

Yes, he goes and asks for one. He goes to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner, or he goes to a place where there is some or other official and he asks for a reference book. The official then asks him to what ethnic group he belongs. He replies that he is a Tswana, a Zulu or whatever the case may be. On the advice which the official obtains from the person himself, he writes on the reference book that that person is a Tswana or whatever the case may be.

Does he accept that?

Who would know better? Would the official know better or would the person who comes to ask know better about whether he is a Tswana? If the hon. member for Maitland goes to the Department to register and he goes to ask for an identity document, he is not going to say that he is a Bantu or a Coloured.

Yes, but one could tell a lie.

After all, I cannot tell the officer that you are a White man. You surely go and apply yourself. Here comes a person who wants to ask for a reference book. In that reference book it is stated that he is a Tswana, and it has been recorded in the book as a result of the information furnished, i.e. that he is a Tswana, for example. It is now recorded in the reference book.

May I ask a question?

Wait until I have completed my argument. Now he walks around with the reference book in which it is stated that he is a Tswana. In this Bill there is no mention of reclassification. In the clause the hon. member has dealt with here, clause 4, there is no mention of reclassification. All that the clause now states is that for the purposes of the Act this person’s identity will be that of a Tswana, as printed in the reference book.

By personal choice?

Yes. He said he is a Tswana and for the purposes of the identity documents he is regarded as a Tswana. That is all that is indicated there. In other words, at the face value of the information in this reference book, which the person himself furnished, it is accepted in the Act that he is what he said he is. It is as simple as that. If that hon. member knows the elementary principles of administration, he ought not to come asking all kinds of foolish questions.

May I ask the hon. member a question? If a Coloured person applies and says he is a White person, do the same rules not apply, i.e. that he is the person who knows best? Then he becomes a White person. Why does it now apply to a Tswana and a Zulu, but not to Coloured persons and White persons?

This Bill does not deal with Coloureds. It deals with Bantu.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the hon. member for Parow makes it sound far too simple when he says that it is purely an administrative matter. He is quite correct, the Bantu will only get a reference book on application. He applies for a reference book. The official asks him whether he can fill in a form and if he cannot, he tells him that he will help him. Then he asks him to which ethnic group he belongs. Then, for argument sake, the Bantu says that he is a Zulu, but when he gets the document and it says that he is a Sotho, what will happen?

Then he has the right of appeal.

Yes, he has the right of appeal, but how does he know?

He is not as dense as you are.

This is the whole point. We are dealing with an unsophisticated group of people, millions of them, in fact 16 million of them. Here you wish to raise a presumption which has far-reaching effects. It is all very well to write into this clause now:

It is no good putting that in here because that is no protection to the Bantu himself when the time comes. Last week we had elections for the Ciskeian Legislative Assembly. For a Ciskeian to qualify to vote in those elections, he had to produce his reference book and in that reference book it had to state that he was in fact a Ciskeian. If an error had crept in, what then? He would have lost his right to vote.

Then he corrects his reference book.

I still have not heard from hon. members on that side, more particularly from the hon. the Deputy Minister, replies to the queries I have put to him. How do they arrive at the classification? Is there any reference to his father’s registration in the Bantu Reference Bureau? Is there perhaps a reference to his mother? Does it follow a patriarchal line or a matriarchal line? He must tell us these things. We want to know because this is important to these millions of people.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District—I said this yesterday and I want to repeat it in the Committee Stage today—that I am not prepared to run after red herrings which the hon. member wishes to draw across the floor of the House. How the ethnic grouping is done in the reference book, has nothing to do with this clause. I challenge the hon. member to tell the Chair what that has got to do with this clause at all. He wants me to take him into my confidence; so I am taking him into my confidence.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is not the hon. the Deputy Minister reflecting on the Chair in questioning the correctness of your allowing the debate along these lines?

Order! The Deputy Minister may proceed.

What far-reaching effect can this grouping have? The hon. member keeps on telling us that this grouping has a far-reaching effect, but he does not tell us what that far-reaching effect is.

I told you.

Let us come back to the clause and the presumption that the hon. member was talking about. What is the presumption? It is that he has been notified on the date on which the reference book was issued to him that he has been classified as a member of the ethnic group indicated in the reference book. That, purely and simply, is the presumption. The man has been given a book. In this book, as large as life, are his name, his photograph and what have you, plus an ethnic classification. I shall take the hon. member into my confidence: The only reason why this presumption is there is that it is a simple presumption, and everybody ought to be aware of it, namely that when a book which contains certain data is placed in your hands, it is assumed that you will know what is in that book. Surely it is as simple as all that. The reason why it is being back-dated to the 22nd June, 1956, is that from this date a prescribed period for the submission of objections to classification was introduced. From that particular date there was a prescribed period for objections. In other words, there must be finality to litigation. That is a legal dictum. All that is happening here is that we are saying to a man that, whatever is written in that book, he must be presumed to be aware of for the simple reason that one cannot come 20 years later and ask for a different classification because it suits one. He may, for example, have met a woman who belongs to a different ethnic group whom he wants to marry. So he comes and objects to his previous classification. There must be finality to litigations and to objections. That is the reason for this presumption. It is not an unfair presumption. It is a normal presumption, that what is in the book must be presumed to be known. That is all it is. I do not know why the hon. member asks me to take him into my confidence. I am not hiding anything from him. This clause is simply a practical clause. That is all it is.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister has taken us into his confidence.

Say thank you.

But I must say that I still object to such a presumption being made. The hon. the Deputy Minister must know that he is dealing with millions and millions of illiterate people. I fail to see how this Government …

Hush, hush, whisper who dares …

Christopher Robin is saying his prayers.

You know, Sir, I only wish that you sat in the centre of this Chamber so that you could also hear the nonsense that goes on here behind us in the kitchen.

Order! The hon. member may continue.

I find it impossible under these conditions to carry on a responsible argument with any member on the other side, Sir. I find it impossible under these conditions, with these irresponsible members on my left. If I might try in peace to discuss this matter with the hon. the Deputy Minister … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may continue.

Which hon. member? This one who is making the noise?

Order! The hon. member who is standing at the moment may continue.

Thank you, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order!

We are dealing with a group of mainly illiterate people who are being handed documents which they accept in good faith. Having accepted them and being illiterate they find themselves under this disability that it is presumed that they know what is written in those documents. This is the point I am trying to make and this is the point to which I object. It is no good writing into this clause that it is only for the purposes of this Act, as I have explained to the hon. the Deputy Minister, because it goes a lot further than that. He asks what the far-reaching consequences are, but these are far-reaching consequences: If they are found living in one area or voting in one area and then their documents of identification show that they belong to some other ethnic group, that can have far-reaching consequences.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to reply to the hon. member. I would not like him to be dissatisfied and to sit down with the feeling that he has not been replied to. It is correct that this is simply a presumption of law, but it facilitates the whole working of the thing. Let us assume for a moment that a Bantu objects to his ethnic classification. All one can expect from an official is that he takes the reference book and sees to what ethnic group the Bantu has been classified.

If he says he cannot read?

If the Bantu says he cannot read—the hon. member knows that there is provision for an application for condonation of the late filing of objections.

Up to one year.

The hon. member who made that remark should know better. I want to tell him that I as an advocate have taken cases of over three years and longer and they were hardly ever refused. The hon. member knows this. It depends on the reasons a person gives for his late application. If a man comes there with a frivolous reason there is no sense in allowing this sort of litigation to go on, but if he comes with a good reason it is adhered to. All this is doing is taking the practical line. As far as the officials of the department are concerned, all they have to do is to say that on the reference book there is an ethnic classification which it is presumed the man knows about. After that the onus rests on him to tell us whether he knows about it or not, and if he wants to object, why he has not objected within one month. It is as easy as all that. There is nothing unfair about it and nothing sinister about it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman. I do not intend taking up the time of the Committee this afternoon. We have expressed our views on this principle under clause 2 of the Bill. Our attitude towards clause 5 is exactly the same as it was under clause 2.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, this side of the House has through the years been opposed to any matter of retrospectivity. We are opposed to being a party to putting right the blunders of this Government. The fact that they blundered 20 years ago and that this blunder has been compounded over the years is for them to put right. We are not prepared to be party to such blunders. We have suggested to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should introduce legislation to validate the Acts that have taken place and to validate the identity documents which obviously have been illegally issued or which obviously are not valid. We suggested this so that he could allow for future delegation as was so ably presented to him this afternoon by my friend the hon. member for Von Brandis. I do not think that we should go any further with this. We have made our attitude quite clear but I do want to place on record just one thing.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Houghton has again left the Chamber. We now come to the end of the second stage of debate on an amendment to the Population Registration and Identity Documents Act. This is a matter which has been opposed through the years by this side of the House. I want to place on record that this lone fighter for human rights has not put in an appearance at all through these two stages and she has not at any stage registered her protest against this measure or even supported the Opposition.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is not contentious. In fact, it is one of those singular pieces of legislation which was requested by hon. Senators of the Other Place.

The Bill regulates two matters, which will now be dealt with separately.

†Mr. Speaker, the first clause of the Bill now before the House follows on a request made by hon. members when the Marriage Amendment Act, 1972, was discussed in the Other Place during its passage last year.

Amongst the provisions of the Marriage Amendment Act, 1972 that were discussed, was one dealing with the condonation of bona fide mistakes made in following the procedure provided for in the prescribed marriage formula. By the 1970 amendment of the Marriage Act, 1961, it was made compulsory for all marriage officers, including ministers of religion and other office bearers of churches appointed as marriage officers, to follow the prescribed marriage formula when solemnizing marriages. If it is borne in mind that there are over 5 500 “church” marriage officers, it can well be understood why this provision was included in the Marriage Act. Before ministers of religion and other church officials appointed as marriage officers were allowed to follow the marriage formulae prescribed by their respective churches. Hon. members pointed out that what now happens is that ministers of religion follow the marriage formulae of their churches when solemnizing marriages, and that in order to comply with the provisions of the Marriage Act, 1961, they quickly run through the prescribed marriage formula, sometimes not even in the church itself, but in the vestry before the marriage register is signed by the parties to the marriage.

It was necessary to provide, as was done by the 1970 amendment of the Marriage Act, 1961, that all marriage officers including ministers of religion should follow the prescribed marriage formula because the marriage formulae of some churches could not be reconciled with all the legal requirements of the Marriage Act, 1961, to ensure that a valid marriage is contracted by the parties to the marriage. This cast doubt on the validity of the marriages so solemnized. Hon. members asked whether it would not be possible again to allow ministers of religion and other church officials appointed as marriage officers to follow the marriage formulae of their respective churches provided that such marriage formulae have been approved by the hon. the Minister of the Interior, so as to ensure that they conform to the legal requirements of the Marriage Act, 1961. By clause 1 of the Bill now before the House it is sought to give effect to this suggestion by hon. members.

*Mr. Speaker, the second matter regulated by the Bill which is before the House now, is connected with the validation of certain Bantu marriages solemnized in the Transvaal and Natal during the period 1st to 23rd November, 1972. The following is a brief outline of the circumstances which gave rise to these marriages possibly being invalid.

Certain old laws of the former Republic and subsequent Colony of Transvaal and the Colony of Natal contained certain requirements which had to he met before the Bantu there could conclude valid marriages in accordance with Christian practices.

Of the provisions of the old laws in question, the most important one was that the Bantu concerned could not conclude a marriage unless a certificate had been lodged stating that their parents or guardians or chiefs had no objections to the proposed marriage.

Recently the provisions of section 2 of the Bantu Laws Amendment Act, 1972, were put into operation with effect from 1st November, 1972. By way of this Amendment Act a new section was inserted in the Bantu Administration Act, 1927, the tenor of which is that in Natal or the Transvaal a Bantu female who is of age may not enter into a marriage without the written consent of her father or legal guardian.

In the light of this new provision of the Bantu Administration Act, 1927, the State President could declare by proclamation, as provided by section 39 of the Marriage Act, 1961, that the provisions of the relevant old pre-Union laws of the Transvaal and Natal were to cease to apply to the Bantu of these two provinces.

By an unfortunate combination of circumstances this proclamation could not be promulgated by the State President on 1st November, 1972, i.e. the date on which the relevant provision of the Bantu Administration Act, 1927, came into operation. The relevant proclamation was only promulgated in the Gazette on 24th November, 1972.

The result of this was that during the period 1st to 23rd November, 1972, Bantu marriages in the Transvaal and Natal were possibly solemnized without there having been compliance with the provisions of the old pre-Union laws which still applied at the time, although there was compliance with the provisions of the new section of the Bantu Administration Act, 1927.

By way of the proposed clause 2(1) of the Bill before the House at the moment, it is provided that the provisions of the relevant old pre-Union laws shall be deemed to have ceased to apply in respect of Bantu as from 1st November, 1972. The effect of this clause of the Bill will be that the Bantu marriages in question will be valid, although at the time of the solemnization of those marriages compliance with the requirements of the relevant old pre-Union laws was lacking.

In the light of the provisions of clause 2(1) of the Bill it is necessary and possible for the relevant proclamation promulgated in the Gazette on 24th November, 1972, to be repealed now. This is being done by clause 2(2) of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as I explained at the beginning of my speech, this Bill is not contentious. It is a piece of legislation of which clause 1 was requested in both Houses, and of which clause 2 seeks to remedy an administrative matter and so to prevent the undesirable consequences that could have arisen if the relevant Bantu marriages had been invalid.

I therefore trust that the Bill will receive the support of both sides of this House.

I hasten to reassure the hon. the Deputy Minister. We accept that this measure is not contentious and we will support him this afternoon. But, Sir, I must point out that we are again being asked to rectify a blunder of this Government. If we look at clause 2 of this Bill, what are we doing? We are rectifying another blunder. We have been doing it all afternoon and it looks as if we are still doing it. But when we look at clause 1, then we in the Opposition have even more right to say, “We told you so”, because this is exactly what the former Minister of the Interior was told when we debated the measure which was then before the House. The hon. member for Green Point in particular went to great lengths to explain to the Minister at the time that he was tying marriage officers to the ipsissima verba that was contained in the Bill, that he was tying them to those words, and that they would not be entitled to use their own form of service. Obviously justice has prevailed; commonsense has at last got through into the heads of the Government, and we welcome this measure this afternoon.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Bill I want to deal with here this afternoon is not a long one, nor does it call for a long explanation. The object of the Bill is to abolish Van Riebeeck Day and Family Day as public holidays, and in that way to reduce the number of public holidays from 12 to 10.

To refresh the memories of hon. members I want to mention that 11 public holidays were established by means of the Public Holidays Act, No. 3 of 1910. This position continued until 1952 when the Public Holidays Act, 1952 was placed on the Statute Book, after a commission of inquiry had investigated and made recommendations in regard to the matter. By means of this Act the number of public holidays was increased from 11 to 12, and Van Riebeeck Day was established as an additional public holiday on the 6th day of April. At the same time the public holiday, the Queen’s Birthday, was moved from the first Monday in August to the second Monday in July. In 1961, after South Africa became a Republic, the name of this public holiday was changed to Family Day.

In comparison with other countries South Africa is one of the few countries which have as many public holidays as there are months in a year. Countries such as Australia and the United States of America have only nine public holidays. Canada has 11. Rhodesia has the same number as South Africa, i.e. 12.

It is generally realized that one of the means of counteracting inflation is to increase productivity and to make a greater contribution to the gross national product. The question arises whether South Africa, in view of this fact, can afford to continue to have 12 public holidays. It is true that in a large number of industries not all the public holidays are paid holidays for the workers concerned. However, there are many professions and industries in which all the public holidays are paid holidays for the workers in those professions and industries. The number of man-days which are lost to these professions and industries must run into thousands.

It also happens that although all the public holidays are paid holidays for certain professions and industries, they nevertheless have to maintain specific services on all public holidays. The result of this is that workers in those professions and industries have to receive additional remuneration on the above-mentioned days.

This will also entail a considerable saving for other professions and industries which, in similar circumstances, have to maintain their services on public holidays. True to human nature the interruption of business which is associated with public holidays also creates a spirit of diminished purposefulness among workers. Sometimes there is also the tendency among people to be absent on leave on ordinary working days so as to link these up with public holidays for the purpose of going on long trips, or for other reasons. This results in even more lost man-days, and also in an increase in the number of motor vehicles on our roads on public holidays, particularly over long weekends, which in turn gives rise to an increased accident rate.

Mr. Speaker, these aspects are known to hon. members and I need not elaborate on this in detail to demonstrate that it is in the interests of South Africa to reduce the number of public holidays.

†Mr. Speaker, the next question which arose was to decide which two of the twelve public holidays to abolish. After careful consideration of the significance of every public holiday now listed in the First Schedule to the Public Holidays Act, it was decided to abolish Van Riebeeck Day and Family Day. It so happens that more or less every six years Van Riebeeck Day falls on one of the days during the Easter weekend. It more frequently happens that Good Friday, Easter Monday and Van Riebeeck Day fall in April. This results in an undesirable accumulation of public holidays in April with consequential disruption in work performances and in some cases of school programmes during this month.

The significance of Van Riebeeck Day is well known, and the decision to abolish it as a public holiday was not lightly taken. It is fully appreciated that Van Riebeeck Day was instituted to commemorate the event of the first settlers settling here under Commandore van Riebeeck.

I now turn to the proposed abolition of Family Day as a public holiday. When South Africa became a Republic in 1961, the Queen’s birthday as a public holiday on the second Monday in July was retained, but its name was changed to Family Day. The motivation for this step was that a day should be set aside on which families could come together to strengthen the family ties. Family Day as a public holiday to bring families together was, however, not the success it was believed it would be. It is common knowledge that it is especially during the Christmas holidays that families come together. The necessity for the retention of Family Day as a day for the reunion of families, therefore, falls away.

In view thereof that the Christmas period is in fact the time during which families come together, it is considered appropriate that Boxing Day, the day following on Christmas day, should be renamed Family Day. I may add that Boxing Day as the day on which postmen, errand boys and servants of various kinds expect to receive a Christmas-box, has lost its significance as such. These persons still receive these so-called Christmas-boxes, but they receive them in most cases not on Boxing Day, but on or before Christmas Day. Boxing Day has therefore become just another public holiday without its name any longer depicting any meaningful significance.

It is in these circumstances that it was decided to introduce legislation with a view to abolishing Van Riebeeck Day and Family Day as public holidays, and to rename Boxing Day Family Day.

*Before I conclude, I just want to mention that it is important that the amending legislation should not come into operation immediately, because work and school programmes for this year have to a large extent been finalized, and because printers have to plan the calendars for next year at this early stage. It is in view of this that it is being provided that the amending legislation will only come into operation on 1st January, 1974.

I want to add that as far as Van Riebeeck Day itself is concerned, the Government feels that that day should still be celebrated on 6th April, though not as a public holiday.

Mr. Speaker, let there be no misunderstanding about this. This side of the House opposes this Bill, and we oppose it most strongly. I know that this is an expression which is sometimes understood incorrectly, but I must say that we feel extremely unhappy that the Parliament of South Africa should be asked to pass such a measure, and what is more to pass it in such a manner. I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister who was consulted on this; where does this measure come from? This measure affects in particular the rights of a group of very important workers in South Africa, namely workers who are doing productive work, such as factory workers, artisans, operators, etc. To them these holidays are important, for they work longer hours than the clerical and administrative workers. They do not have a five-day working week as the clerical and administrative workers for the most part have today. These days are important holidays to them; they are days of rest for them. Not only are they important days of rest for them, but these are days which are important to them in their relations with their employers. One could consider every industrial agreement under the Industrial Conciliation Act and one would see how important it is that these paid holidays be given to the workers either as a holiday or as a day on which they work but for which they receive double pay. This the hon. the Deputy Minister did not tell us, and now I want to know from him who will compensate these workers in the case of these holidays which are being abolished and which are double-pay holidays in terms of industrial agreements.

But not one of these two holidays is a double-pay holiday.

I am not referring only to mining. That is all that hon. member thinks about. I am asking specifically: Where one of these holidays is recognized in an industrial agreement as a working day on which double pay is received, who is going to compensate the workers for the loss they are going to suffer? Has the matter been considered; has a decision been taken in regard to it?

Not one of these days is involved in this.

There will be industrial agreements—I cannot mention one at the moment and I am very sorry about that—which do in fact recognize these days as paid holidays. We have this in the motor industry for example. In the motor industry Van Riebeeck Day, as far as I know, is such a day. I want to know whether these people are going to be compensated. It is a simple question. If such a case occurs, who is going to compensate these people? Is the State going to compensate them?

My second question is this: Why Van Riebeeck Day? In most countries of the world which I know anything about the day on which that country was founded, the day on which the fathers of those nations founded the new countries, is a holiday. This is true of all the younger countries of the world. This is the case in Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand and in almost all the states in South America. Why should South Africa be different? What do we have against Jan van Riebeeck? Why must he be voted out? Is it because he had long hair? That is the only reason I can think of; we really cannot be all that prejudiced! I think the hon. the Minister owes us a little justification. We were given no justification by him for these actions, except that it would lead to greater productivity. It would lead to far greater productivity if all of us work on Saturdays. This is a new phenomenon and it has only been for the last 20 years that we have been working a five-day week. If it is so important then for us to become more productive, why do we not propose that all the workers contribute more to productivity by working on Saturdays?

Do you propose that?

No, I do not. I propose that we leave matters as they are. I want the unjustness of this measure to be exposed.

†I want to show that this is an unjust measure which is aimed particularly at the blue-collar worker of South Africa and that it will not affect the white-collar worker of South Africa and the executive classes in this country. They can have all the holidays they want. It is the blue-collar workers who have to work for six days a week every week and for 36 to 40 hours a week. To them public holidays are important. I repeat: Why Van Riebeeck Day? Secondly, I want to know why Boxing Day? Why change its name? If Family Day must go, let it go, but why must Boxing Day’s name be changed? I cannot avoid the suspicion that Boxing Day is part of the English-speaking people’s tradition in South Africa. That is why the name has to disappear.

Do you prefer to retain the name “Boxing Day”?

Yes, of course. I do not want to keep the words; I want to keep two holidays that the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to take away from my people. The hon. the Deputy Minister must not try to lead me astray. Of course, if there were no option but to take away Family Day, then one could consider the merits of calling Boxing Day, Boxing Day or Family Day. But neither these two holidays should disappear. If a holiday has to disappear, I would rather have something as vague as Family Day disappear and leave the old traditional Boxing Day.

Boxing Day does not disappear.

No, the name and the tradition of Boxing Day disappear. I can tell hon. members now that if it were a tradition of our section of the people, the Afrikaans-speaking people, it would not have disappeared. It is just because here we have to have another little dig at the tradition of our English-speaking fellow South Africans.

I made you an offer.

No, I want the hon. the Deputy Minister please to reconsider this because it is not wise. The whole matter has not been considered thoroughly. It is ill-conceived and it has been brought before us in a hurry. I know for a fact, for example, that not a single trade union …

May I ask the hon. member a question? The question is whether the hon. member now wishes to retain the word “Boxing Day” on behalf of the English-speaking people—yes or no? The offer I make you is that you can make this choice on behalf of the English-speaking people.

Order!

I want to make this choice on behalf of all the workers of South Africa and I want to retain the name Boxing Day; I want to retain Family Day and I want to retain Van Riebeeck Day. Why should a choice be forced upon me? Why should I decide whether I would rather be shot or hung, if I am innocent? I do not want to take any such decisions. I want the holidays to remain. I say that it is an ill-considered measure and I want to state here with the greatest emphasis that the trade unions of the people affected, the workers, were not even consulted. Does the hon. the Minister not think that it would have been far more courteous to have consulted the leaders of the various trade unions and trade union groups in South Africa? He could have told them that it was being considered in the interests of productivity, and could have asked them how they felt about it and whether they would co-operate. But he took this step without any consultation. I know that a request was made by the Association of the Chambers of Commerce. Was this done blithely on their mere recommendation? The people have a right to these holidays. It is a right given to them as a result of a commission on which Dr. Dӧnges, if I remember correctly, was the chairman, or the initiator. One does not deprive one’s people of their rights without consulting them. In particular one does not take away the rights of people who work to produce wealth for you in factories, and on top of it without consulting them. In all sincerity I want to express the hope that in this case the Government will reconsider and at least find out first what the public reaction is to this petty, mean-spirited measure of a Government which has lost contact with the people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lion hunter, but those who hunt lions tell me that, when one has shot a fine specimen and he is lying there as dead as a door-nail and one walks up to him and pushes lightly down on him, he emits a final roar. To me it would seem as though the hon. member for Yeoville gave that final roar here this afternoon. The hon. member is regarded as being a very clever politician, but I fear here he was engaged in a rear-guard action which carried no conviction whatsoever. The hon. member set out to make some political capital for a party which is in tatters. He tried to make some political capital by pleading for the workers because two of their public holidays are being taken away from them. However, he was unable to quote any example of the workers being paid extra on these particular days. Personally I do not believe that there is any group of workers who are paid extra on these two days.

The hon. member asked, “Why Van Riebeeck Day?” What alternative does he suggest? What other public holiday does he want to take away? He tried to beat the racial drum and asked on behalf of the English-speaking section why it was necessary to change the name “Boxing Day”. No one knows anymore what the tradition is behind Boxing Day. No one attaches any value to it. Therefore, it is absolutely ridiculous. No, Sir, I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister most heartily on this measure this afternoon. I want to say that it is a very sound principle for us to start looking at our public holidays.

The hon. member said all other countries in the world made a holiday of the day on which they were founded. That may be so, but this Government is dynamic and progressive. We are people who are pioneers also in this direction. We are living in the second half of the 20th century and we are beginning to look at these aspects, too, and we must take any steps which must be taken. We have 12 public holidays, and I must say that is far too many. I almost said it is 12 days too many. I am very thankful that in terms of this Bill we are succeeding in eliminating two of those days.

Many of us sitting in this House used to be in the teaching profession. From the day I became a teacher, I hated public holidays and long weekends. One does not lose that particular day only, one loses the school day before the weekend and the school day after the weekend as well. Our people simply have that restless spirit which makes them want to be on the road whenever a long weekend comes along. Early in the day the parents come to the schools and fetch their children because they want to go away with them. It causes restlessness and loss of work and productivity. It is not only in the schools that this happens. The same happens in our colleges, our technical colleges and our universities, and also in our factories and other institutions. For this reason the reduction in the number of public holidays must be welcomed.

The most important factor is the alarming number of accidents on our roads. As I have said, whenever a long weekend or a holiday comes along, every living soul is out on the roads. They want to go away; they want to go and visit. The Road Safety Council found that the vast majority of accidents last year could be ascribed to driving fatigue. A man comes from work and without eating or resting properly, he gets in his car and the family takes to the road. They travel until late at night, the children become irritable; trouble starts and the result is an accident. We must ask ourselves whether South Africa can afford to make this high accident rate on our roads even higher. We are a young people, a small White people with an enormous task, not only in South Africa, but also in Southern Africa and in Africa. We need every grain of the wish to work and the power to work which every man and child and woman in South Africa can give. We must not teach our people to have holidays; we must now teach our people to work. We must teach our people to apply themselves to their work. I want to ask on how many occasions this Parliament has found it necessary to suspend its business on Van Riebeeck Day. Not on a single occasion since I have been here. That does not mean that we do not commemorate Van Riebeeck Day; that does not mean that we have no regard for Van Riebeeck Day. I am the last person to believe that a people should fail to honour its founders. I believe a people must honour its founders and must pay them the necessary homage. I believe we may not forget our history. I have great respect for our founder’s day, Jan van Riebeeck Day, and I do not want a line to be drawn through it, but rather that it be underlined, by not making it a public holiday. [Interjections.] Those hon. members laugh but they laugh out of ignorance and those who laugh the loudest display the greatest ignorance. I as a cultural leader who loves my culture—and I think you know that, Sir—have asked earlier on for the day which is most precious to us, namely 16th December, the Day of the Covenant, to cease being a public holiday but to be a school day and a working day with the very object of using our youth to celebrate that day properly. When there is a public holiday, no one knows what has happened or why it is a public holiday. Every one is falling over themselves to pack and to get their holiday plans in order. When we no longer celebrate Van Riebeeck Day as a public holiday in the future, suitable small programmes may be arranged in the schools to commemorate our founder in a becoming manner. Wreaths may still be laid and programmes may be arranged at our universities and colleges to commemorate our founders. Then we shall be able to do our founders justice. But what happens at present? No one knows. Throughout the country Van Riebeeck Day is a public holiday, but only in Cape Town are wreaths laid at the feet of Jan van Riebeeck’s statue. This can still happen. No, Sir, we can no longer afford a whole number of public holidays, particularly now that we have a five-day working week. When these holidays were introduced, this was not so and we had a six-day working week. If that hon. member wishes to do something positive, he must come to this House with a private member’s motion and suggest that we must revert to the six-day working week. But this is not what he did, he pleaded for even more holidays. Our workers, because they only work five days in the week, no longer need so many extra public holidays. It will do no harm if this particular day of commemoration is not a public holiday.

I also wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the idea of having Family Day, the first Monday in July, abolished as a public holiday. I think that is a remnant of the days of the old alliance with Britain. It was the Queen’s birthday or something similar, and we then made it Family Day. However, it is not a very good day to have as Family Day because it falls in the dead of winter which is a very bad time for a family to enjoy the open air. Boxing Day, the day after Christmas, has absolutely no value for us; no sentiment attaches to it, not even for the English-speaking section. I have never come across anyone who is opposed to its being abolished. In fact Boxing Day is South Africa’s traditional family day. We have been pleading for many years for Christmas to be spent with one’s family at home. That is how we, the Afrikaans-speaking section, would like it to be. Christmas Day should be a holiday spent with one’s family at home. Now it fits in beautifully for Boxing Day to become Family Day, a day which falls in the height of summer. On that day a family may go on an outing on foot to our beaches or to other natural beauty-spots. If the outing should take the form of a walk for the family, it will be so much more wholesome, healthy, safe and enjoyable for everyone. Our people must learn to walk. Fortunately this is happening. I live on the outskirts of the city and I see many young people, particularly on Saturdays, walking from the city to the beaches. If we as families could pack our rucksacks, that is, father, and mother and the children together, and go and have a picnic together on this day, that is on Boxing Day which will become Family Day, it will be more beneficial for us all. I welcome the reduction in the number of our public holidays. I make bold to say that I would welcome even more of them being dropped as public holidays. I believe that more justice is done to the historical value of such a day if it is not celebrated as a public holiday.

Mr. Speaker, I really did not know whether to laugh or to cry when I listened to the hon. member for Algoa. I wondered just how serious he was with his contribution to this debate. I certainly do not believe the hon. member could have been serious when he pleaded that we should do away with two public holidays because of the accidents which occur on those holidays through people rushing out on to the roads because they are tired having worked so hard. I want to ask him: Does he want the people to work on Saturdays. Does he want them to work on Sundays too? On Saturdays and Sundays people also get into their cars and rush off out of town to have picnics and things like that. Can he produce statistics to prove that there are more fatalities on those days? And why choose Van Riebeeck Day and Family Day? Is it on those two days that we have all these accidents? I do not believe that the hon. member was serious when he made that suggestion. In exactly the same way I do not believe that he was serious when he said that there was no sentimental attachment to the term “Boxing Day”. There may not be for him, and I accept that in the same way I believe that there may not be any sentimental attachment to the name “Boxing Day” amongst all my fellow-South Africans who are Afrikaans speaking. I accept that. I ask him to accept that my group does attach something sentimental to that particular day. It is something which has been handed down over the years.

What?

If they will be quiet, they will hear. It has become traditional. There are many reasons why it is called “Boxing Day”. I am not prepared to say at this stage which is the correct concept. There are many stories that come forward and traditions which have arisen over the years as to why it is called “Boxing Day”. What must also be remembered is that this is the day on which the feast of St. Stephen is commemorated in many countries throughout the world. St. Stephen, as you will know, was the first Christian martyr. This is his day, irrespective of what we call it. But, Sir, why is it called “Boxing Day”? One story goes that it is because in the old days it was the day on which the poor-boxes in the churches were opened and the money distributed amongst the poor. Then we have another story, that this was the day on which the young boy apprentices went around with earthenware boxes and visited the clients of their masters and collected a Christmas box for themselves. Of course, we do have in this country what is known as a “Christmas box”. There was a time when I believed that that term only applied in this country, but that is not so. It applies throughout the world. In the United Kingdom, in Australia and in America it is referred to as a Christmas box, and traditionally this was the day on which the delivery man—the milkman, the newspaper delivery man and even the garbologist—comes to collect his Christmas box.

What is a garbologist?

Sir, do you know that old song, “My Old Man’s a Dustman”? That is a garbologist. Sir, I want to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister to leave us this little bit and to withdraw clause 1.

That is a new word in English.

I will agree that it is a new word in English, but it is an old word in America. I want to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister to withdraw clause 1. Let us have our Boxing Day; it is not going to make any difference to him.

Then, Sir, we come to the real crux of the Bill before us.

Clause 1 does not take away Boxing Day.

No, Sir, it does not take it away, but how obtuse can the hon. the Deputy Minister be? I am asking him to withdraw clause 1 so that this day can remain as Boxing Day.

I will give you the name “Boxing Day” in the English text of this Bill.

Is the hon. the Deputy Minister prepared to leave it in the Bill?

If you want it.

Sir, I appreciate the gesture of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I am glad that he will leave it as “Boxing Day”.

I will give you Boxing Day as a Christmas box.

I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for that Christmas box. [Interjection.] Yes, I suppose it is like many of the Christmas boxes which are handed out on Boxing Day!

The only Christmas box he got was when he got his job as Deputy Minister.

Sir, let us get down to the serious part of this Bill, and that is the removal of two public holidays from our calendar in South Africa. I want to say that there has been a long history attached to the establishment of these public holidays in South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister is no doubt aware that there were Select Committees in 1925 and 1936 and that there was a commission appointed at the end of 1949 which reported during 1950. The hon. the Deputy Minister will also be aware that those two Select Committees and the commission all recommended that there should be a Van Riebeeck Day—all three of them—but, now, through unilateral action, this Government wants to do away with it. Having not accepted the 1925 recommendation, having not accepted the 1936 recommendation, and having accepted the unanimous recommendation of a commission—not a Select Committee—in 1950 and having established this holiday, the Government, by unilateral action, now wants to take it away. Why, after 13 years, take away this holiday by unilateral action? Sir, I want to go further when I talk about unilateral action. I want to say that they have consulted with none of the persons concerned. The hon. member for Yeoville has said that none of the trade unions was consulted. Was commerce consulted? Was anybody consulted, or is this purely, as I say, a unilateral decision taken by this Government? What did this commission say in 1950 regarding holidays, particularly regarding Van Riebeeck Day? I quote from the report of the commission—

Then it goes on to recommend that Van Riebeeck Day should be a holiday, a recommendation which was accepted. It goes further and says—

Now why does this Government want to take away our birthday? Because I find that even Van Riebeeck himself in his biography expressed the wish, the hope, that this day, 6th April, would be set aside and recognized in South Africa for all time as the day on which he landed.

Where did you read that?

I never said that I had read it. I said I believe that is what he did. All right, Sir, let us get it right. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister deny that that is what Jan van Riebeeck wrote? [Interjections.] What is he making a fuss about if he admits that Van Riebeeck did write it? Sir, with respect, I do not know what the hon. the Deputy Minister is arguing about.

Regarding the arguments about too many holidays in one month, in April, I am afraid this does not carry any water either. It is no good saying that there are three holidays in April or that there are three holidays in close proximity to one another. What is important is the disruption of business and of commerce and industry in this country. I want to submit that two of those holidays only represent one disruption anyway because there are very few businesses and certainly no industries which continue on Easter Saturday. None of them do so. They close for one period, from Friday to Monday. It is as simple as that. Therefore I do not see any force in that argument at all.

Regarding Family Day, as the hon. the Minister so correctly said, Family Day was the old King’s birthday or Queen’s birthday and I want to draw the attention of the House to the recommendation of the commission of 1950 in this respect—

We have been a Republic for 12 years now.

I have just made it clear that this was the day which today is referred to as Family Day and we accepted since 1961 that it should be called Family Day, but this report refers to it as the King’s birthday. If the hon. member would listen he might be able to make a responsible contribution to the debate. I want to put it this way to the hon. the Deputy Minister, that that particular holiday, falling during July, is absolutely essential to the people of South Africa, particularly to the parents and the workers of South Africa. We have this long gap from 31st May until September with no public holiday at all which allows the workers a rest. But we have in July the school holidays in all four provinces of the Republic. Surely these commissioners in 1950 were wise in granting one day during those school holidays which the parents could spend with their children. I want to say that I do not believe that this holiday should be done away with at all. I want to associate myself entirely with what was said by the hon. member for Yeoville regarding the question of the trade unions of the workers and what the effect of this Bill is going to be on the workers of South Africa. I want to repeat that I believe that no workers’ organizations were consulted.

Can the hon. member tell us how many or what percentage of workers who are paid on a daily basis are paid for these two holidays?

The question of the hon. member is: How many daily paid workers are paid on these particular two days?

Yes.

This is unfortunately information which I cannot give and I shall tell the hon. member why. We have not had the time to investigate thoroughly. This Bill arrived on our desks on Tuesday and we were, in fact, expected to debate it last night if this House had sat for the full time. We are debating it now after two days and we have had no time whatsoever to do any such research. However, in the course of what I am going to say I shall give the hon. member a portion of the answer, because I shall tell him … [Interjections.]

Order!

Why do you convey a false impression to the House?

No, I am not conveying any false impression. Does the hon. member know how many workers there are in the tobacco industry?

Yes, a few.

A few! Well, those few workers get paid for these days. They get these days off or they get paid double pay if they work on those days. Does he know how many workers there are in the hosiery industry?

A few.

By industrial agreement all those workers get paid for these days. What about the workers in the transport industry? [Interjections.] The workers in the transport industry are paid double pay on those days because those days are paid holidays and in the motor industry they are negotiating at present to have those days acknowledged as paid holidays in that industry. If this hon. member knew anything about what was going on in the labour world, he would know that at this very moment the motor industry is in the process of negotiating a new agreement and that this is one of the subjects on which they are negotiating. They are considering whether they should regard all these holidays as paid holidays. This is used as a bargaining point when labour has negotiations with employers. The hon. member for Yeoville asked: Who is going to compensate the workers for this? [Interjections.] Did I hear correctly that the Government said that they were going to compensate the workers? What did the hon. member for Tygervallei say?

I asked whether we are in session on Van Riebeeck Day.

Yes, we are. We are not included in the group of workers who get Van Riebeeck Day off.

[Inaudible.]

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Planning whether that is the reason why he wants to do away with Van Riebeeck Day. If that is the reason, then we are getting the truth out of the mouth of the hon. the Minister. That is the reason, then, why they want to do away with Van Riebeeck Day: Because we, as members of Parliament, have to work on that day, he believes that all the workers of South Africa have to work.

What about the workers?

I am talking about the workers. I think I have shown that industry is definitely affected by this because there are sections of industry which enjoy these public holidays. Who else is affected? All the people in commerce. Unfortunately I cannot give the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark the exact figures, but I do know that the people employed in the distributive trade alone are more than 250 000.

But they get normal pay for those days; not double pay.

They get normal pay, yes, but now we are going to make them work. They got normal pay for nothing before but now we are going to make them work for it. Are we going to give them double pay? I want to say that these people are motivated by the capitalists in this country because the only ones that I know of who are in favour of this, are the business men. And I dissociate myself as a business man from this. They are the only people who are in favour of this because they maintain that it costs them business and money every day that their businesses are closed. They are the only ones. We have the position today where the Government is siding with the capitalists against the workers and against the proletariat, because in addition to the workers in commerce who are affected, what about those in the banks? How many thousands of people are employed in the banks? They will have to work. How many professions are there where the people will have to work? What about education; what about the teachers? It affects the children too because they will have to work as well, although they do not get paid. What about the Government and provincial workers? What about the employees of local authorities as well as those in the industries I have mentioned?

They are working now.

Who is working now on public holidays? Who is working on Van Riebeeck Day? How can that hon. member sit there and say that? Surely he knows that all offices of local authorities are closed on Van Riebeeck Day.

I am not talking about the offices.

Well, who is going to operate in the offices? How can the hon. member say that? The hon. member must not try to mislead the House deliberately like that. I want to submit this afternoon that the philosophy of this Government is wrong.

What about the garbologists?

Do they work on those days? I want to submit that the Government’s philosophy in this matter is completely and utterly wrong and that they are working according to a philosophy that is all wrong. This is borne out by what the hon. the Deputy Minister said when he introduced this Bill, together with the hon. member for Algoa, when he said that longer working hours would increase productivity in South Africa. Are we now entering an era where this is going to be the thinking of the Government, that the answer to their problem regarding the economy of this country and greater productivity is to force the workers to work longer hours? Is that so? I want to say that that is wrong. If it is their way of thinking, why do they go so far as to reintroduce the five-and-a-half day week? If it is their philosophy that we must work longer hours to increase productivity, that is what they must do. That is the logical conclusion they must come to if that is their philosophy. This is entirely opposed to the trend overseas where the trend is to reduce working hours. But on this question of productivity I want to say in conclusion that if this is the Government’s philosophy, they are wrong. How often have they been told by this side of the House that the way to increase productivity is to utilize all the available manpower and all the resources we have in this country and not to force those few workers who are working to work longer hours? I regret it sincerely, but I cannot support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg delivered a plea here for the workers who were allegedly going to be robbed of their holidays, and he quoted long lists of people who would have to work for their money on these days, Van Riebeeck Day and Family Day, instead of enjoying a holiday. He asked who was going to pay them. As I see this legislation before us, its main object is to promote production, to inspire our people to work harder and to work more and to develop an attitude of mind which will enable us to achieve higher production in this country. Hon. members all know that we are experiencing a time of serious inflation in South Africa. One of the methods of combating this inflation, is this very method of cultivating an attitude of mind among our people which will lead to increased production, harder work and more man hours being worked. The object of the Bill, in a nutshell, is to cultivate in our young people, our boys and girls, our workers, our office workers and in everyone the attitude of this Parliament, and that is that Van Riebeeck Day is a day on which one should work. It has been attempted to make an exception in respect of those people who fall under trade union or industrial legislation. If a plea is delivered by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District for certain workers who fall under the industrial legislation, he must draw a comparison between the position of these workers and that of the people who work in offices, banks, insurance companies, attorneys’ offices and all other offices in our country, because in terms of this legislation, these people will also be obliged now to work on these days, to produce and to make a contribution to the national income of our people. I believe that with this legislation we are taking a step in the right direction in the cultivation of a certain attitude, one of the nobleness of work, of respect towards service and towards labour. Therefore I am satisfied that we should press forward with this legislation in this respect.

If we must raise the argument, as it was raised by hon. members opposite, that the abolition of Van Riebeeck Day means that we are renouncing a day on which we should pay respect to our founder and that the fact that we will no longer celebrate that day as a holiday means that we will no longer show the necessary respect, I wish to say that that too is wrong. It is not necessary to have a holiday to show respect. If we were to retain this holiday and regard it as a sacred day, as we Afrikaners celebrate the Day of the Covenant, I would have said we had a point, and their argument would have had some substance. But throughout the land there are only a few places where Van Riebeeck Day is celebrated sporadically. Personally I only know of one place, the Mother City, Cape Town, where wreaths are laid. There is no reason why this ceremony which takes place down here on the Foreshore at Van Riebeeck’s statue, should not continue.

I should like to associate myself with the very sound argument raised here by the hon. member for Algoa, and that is that in so far as Van Riebeeck Day will fall in a school term and will be a school-day in future, this day may be put to good use to inspire the young sons and daughters of our people with the idea of the foundation of our people here in South Africa, by holding special functions in our schools on that day. Hon. members will know that in virtually all our schools throughout the country Republic Day is celebrated in this way on the day immediately preceding Republic Day itself. Hon. members will know that these occasions in schools are particularly inspiring for our young people. Therefore I should very much like to see that if Van Riebeeck Day is to be celebrated, it should be celebrated in this way so that its importance, or its solemnity, or its significance to our society in South Africa may be brought home to our young people. At this stage hon. members in this House must grant me that no such function is being fulfilled in respect of Van Riebeeck Day except at the ceremony of the laying of wreaths at the foot of the statue in Adderley Street. This House itself works on that day. This House itself honours Van Riebeeck by rendering service to the people out there. I believe that that is right. If hon. members want to become sentimental about our founder’s day, I want to say that we have enough other days on which that which is traditional in our life may be honoured. There is Republic Day which is the day on which this Republic of ours was founded. We can get emotional about that. We can make a sacred occasion of that. We have Settlers Day. Let the members of this House who are English-speaking honour that day and develop it into a sacred holiday on which we commemorate the coming of the 1820 Settlers. We have Kruger Day which is commemorated by the Afrikaans-speaking section of our population. There is the Day of the Covenant. All these days are national holidays in the narrower sense of the word because they are days of inspiration. For that reason I feel that we have enough of these days on which we may come together, on which we may hold meetings and muster our strength, and that Van Riebeeck Day may in fact be celebrated in another and quieter way than by making it a public holiday.

I understood from the hon. the Deputy Minister that he would be prepared to retain the name “Boxing Day” in the English version. I want to say to him that the name “Boxing Day” has absolutely no meaning to us as Afrikaans-speaking people. For us it has become “Tweede Kersdag”. What “Tweede Kersdag” may mean, I do not know, but what I do know, is that for us as Afrikaans-speaking people Christmas Day and the Christmas festival have become a family festival in the nicest and best sense of the word. Therefore I hope that as far as the Afrikaans version of this Bill is concerned, the hon. the Deputy Minister will be satisfied to substitute the word “Gesinsdag” for “Tweede Kersdag” as we had it in the past. Up to the present time the only tradition of which I have any knowledge as far as “Boxing Day” is concerned is the fact that on this day we have a major sports meeting at Paarl every year.

The final observation I want to make is that the industrial workers and also the workers belonging to the trade unions are the very ones who have been arguing throughout the years that they are second-class workers because they have not had Van Riebeeck Day as a holiday. They considered themselves to be second-class workers because they did not have the privilege of having a holiday. They did that because of the fact that the white collar workers, the office workers, did in fact have a holiday on that day. Now that we are depriving the so-called white collar workers of that privilege, I think the agitation regarding this day will also come to an end as far as the trade unions are concerned and we shall therefore be able to set the example of good service to the country and the people on that day as well.

Mr. Speaker, firstly I would like to reply to the charge made by the hon. member for Yeoville when he said that factory workers and tradesmen and operators would now suffer a very heavy loss. In the first instance, neither Van Riebeeck Day nor Family Day is a paid holiday for employees in terms of the Factories Act, which only provides for six holidays. Factory workers will not be affected by the proposed change, unless an industrial council agreement was also applicable to them. Most of these agreements are not applicable to factory workers, and what is more, the deletion of the above-mentioned two days in the first schedule to the Act will have no effect during the currency of an existing agreement. The workers will in any case still have the right to negotiate for extra remuneration to apply at all times, even though it is not provided for in the Act. The industrial agreement as such is an agreement between the employee and the employer, which as such has nothing to do with this Act.

As far as the word “Boxing Day” is concerned, I have already conceded to hon. members that if they feel that English sentiment will be affected by a change in this respect—the hon. member for Bellville has rightly said that the name “Boxing Day” has no sentimental value for the Afrikaner—then they are quite entitled to feeling that way and I am quite willing for the traditional word “Boxing Day” to be retained in the English text and for the word “Gesinsdag” in the Afrikaans text because the Afrikaner gathers his family around him at Christmas time and would like to observe the day after Christmas as Family Day, to give the family a feeling of belonging together, that they should come together at Christmas time.

I want to say that I am in full agreement with what was said by the hon. member for Bellville and the hon. member for Algoa, both of whom, in my humble opinion, submitted very sound arguments to this House. It is absolutely essential for us as workers of South Africa to have fewer holidays, particularly fewer paid holidays. Salary increases have been granted from time to time, and we are well-paid. After these two holidays had been introduced, our people had Saturdays off. Factory workers work a five-day week. Now our office workers also work a five day week. We cannot just expect to have paid holidays while money pours into our pockets and there is no production. It has become absolutely essential for our people to produce in return for what they receive. I do not apologize for this Bill; I am convinced that the workers of South Africa who have the welfare of South Africa at heart, will choose to work two days extra. This is a question of the national interest. The workers will not work for nothing; they will be paid.

I made inquiries in connection with Van Riebeeck Day because it has sentimental value for all South Africans. The 6th of April is our founding day, the day Van Riebeeck landed here and a stone was made with inhabiting of this part of the continent. We all feel sentimental about that. I ascertained from the cultural organizations that celebrations on this day were minimal. This day is only celebrated in Cape Town. Celebrations are also arranged by the Netherlands—South African Work Community and the Van Riebeeck Foundation. I believe that our cultural leaders will still arrange celebrations in the evenings in commemoration of the day on which South Africa was founded. I shall give hon. members an example. There is Delville Wood Day, which is commemorated by most English-speaking people, and also by Afrikaners, and which has its origin after the First World War. That day is not a public holiday, but it is commemorated every year. The same goes for Remembrance Day. That day is also commemorated every year, but is not a public holiday. In this way Van Riebeeck Day may also be commemorated without our people stopping work. I went to more trouble than did the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. I read the Van Riebeeck Diary. He wrote that part in his diary two years after he had landed in South Africa. However, subsequent to that he did not make any reference to that matter in his diary. I tried to ascertain whether he really celebrated that day in subsequent years. However, there was no further mention of 6th April. One thing is certain, and that is that if they did not work, it would have been mentioned in the diary. Van Riebeeck worked on 6th April because it was necessary for him to work. If they had in fact celebrated, they would have done so after they had finished working. That is what our people should also do. All that is happening in South Africa at present is that we in the Cape have a military parade in the course of that day. We shall still have that, because Cape Town is the place where Van Riebeeck landed. The rest of us will commemorate him after the working day is over. We would like this day to be commemorated without our stopping work. There is a reason why Van Riebeeck Day was decided on. There is an accumulation of holidays in April. Two of those days are religious holidays, namely Good Friday and Easter Monday. Now that Van Riebeeck Day falls near those days, there is the practical aspect that one could take a longer holiday. One could also take the other two work days so that one may have four or five days off. Good Friday then loses its religious aspect; people go on holiday over the long weekend. Let us rather come together on Good Friday and on Easter Monday in a religious spirit; on 6th April, after we have finished our day’s work, let us hold our commemoration festival, and let us then call the second day of Christmas, when the family is together, Family Day. The holiday in July has been totally unpractical. That day has no sentimental value for anyone. It used to be a Queen’s birthday. That Queen has not been our Queen for a long time, and I think that we may in any case very profitably forgo that holiday.

Sir, no arguments of any substance have been advanced here, and under those circumstances I feel that hon. members have not justifiably advanced any argument against the abolition of these two days.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—72: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Hanson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; (Brakpan) Le Roux, F. J.; (Hercules) Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

NOES—28: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillié, H. van Z.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Oldfield, G. N.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE UNDER HALF-HOUR ADJOURNMENT RULE

(Restriction of Black Student Leaders of Certain Organizations)

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Sir, last week the House had an opportunity of discussing the banning of eight White student leaders arising out of the two interim reports on Nusas by the Schlebusch Commission. It seems to me that the equally drastic action which has been taken against eight young Black leaders should also be discussed by this House. All eight are subject to severe banning orders and two of them have also had house arrest imposed on them. I think that the Minister of Justice owes this House and the country an explanation as to why these eight young Black leaders have been so severely punished. Four of these young people are office-bearers of the South African Students’ Organization, SASO. Two of them are officials of the Black People’s Convention, the BPC. The remaining two are fulltime field workers of Black community programmes run by Spro-Cas, which is the special project for Christian action in society and which is jointly run by the Christian Institute and by the South African Council of Churches. There is no doubt that some of these student leaders have had pretty stormy academic careers, but there is also no doubt, as far as I can ascertain, that there is no record of any subversion against any of these, that none of them has been convicted of any serious crime and not one of them to the best of my knowledge has been warned under the Suppression of Communism Act.

Now, the first question which arises immediately is why, having this ready-made commission sitting on Nusas and other organizations, were not SASO and the Black People’s Convention referred to it for investigation? It surely would have been easy enough to extend the terms of reference and, indeed, when the commission was set up in July last year its terms of reference were considerably more extensive than those announced by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House. It seems to me that it would have been simple enough to have included both these organizations to which the banned students belong and to have included them in this select group to which the commission is devoting its undivided attention. It so happens that I have announced before that I do not have very much confidence—indeed I have no confidence—in the Schlebusch Commission. I have no confidence in its methods of investigation, which I believe to be a far cry indeed from a judicial inquiry. But the Government does have full confidence in the commission and it certainly can rely on the fullest co-operation of the United Party members serving on that commission.

Order! That is not under consideration.

Sir, I am suggesting that the two organizations to which the banned students belong could have been referred to the Schlebusch Commission.

Order! The hon. member must confine her remarks to the motion.

Yes, I am confining my remarks to it. It seems extraordinary, therefore, that these people should have been banned without any investigation and without any inquiry, and I wonder whether it is just because they belong to Black organizations that this was done.

Nonsense!

I should like to tell the House something about two of the organizations to which these Black people belong, SASO and the Black People’s Convention. I will not worry about Spro-Cas because Spro-Cas is part of the Christian Institute and no doubt we will hear about it in due course when the commission gets around to reporting on that dangerous organization, the Christian Institute! It seems to me it is probably just as well in the circumstances that the commission is going to become a permanent body; otherwise it is going to end up rather like the Press Commission which sat for about 14 years with I think only one of the original members being extant by the time it had finished its work.

SASO is a students organization. It was formed some four or five years ago when Black students broke away from Nusas to establish a Blacks-only student organization. The term “Black” in this instance includes Africans, Indians and Coloureds. Some seven institutions are now affiliated to SASO, representing approximately 3 000 students: three Black universities, the Transvaal College of Education, the University of Natal—that is the Black section—the Federal Theological Seminary at Alice and the Lutheran Training College. There are branches of SASO in Soweto, in Durban and in the Western Cape. By a very strange coincidence the offices of SASO were burgled last week and all their confidential documents were stolen. I trust the Police are going to be vigilant in pursuing the burglars.

SASO’s manifesto makes it clear that it aims to build up Black awareness in order to liberate the Blacks from “psychological oppression” arising out of an inferiority complex and “physical oppression occurring out of living in a White racist society”. Here are quotes from the banned people themselves. One of them said:

Another one said:

Another one said:

Another quote reads:

To me this could be shades of General Hertzog’s famous “two-stream policy” speech at De Wildt where he talked about the need for Afrikaners to hive off and raise themselves from the position of hewers of wood and drawers of water.

Do you support apartheid?

One of the banned persons asked for a free university—free of Government control—and he said:

This to me is shades of the late Dr. Verwoerd, who said that Bantu Education should be designed to make a Bantu a good Bantu and not an imitation Englishman. Those who were in the House at the time will remember those words very well. Are all the sentiments which have been voiced by SASO, to which these banned young people belong, not exactly what White Afrikaner Nationalists have been saying for years in propounding separate development, separate freedom and separate nationhood? One of the banned leaders said:

Therefore it could well be said that SASO and the young men who were running it and who are now banned, are largely a creation of Government policy and all it implies. The views and the policies put forward by SASO leaders are a reflection of statements and policies of the Nationalist Government which for years has enforced segregation by law after law in every possible sphere, in education, in separate but unequal amenities, in trade unions, in politics, and has, indeed, engineered the breakup of all multi-racial organizations. I wonder what the Government expects the reaction of Black students to be. What I say in this regard applies also to the Black People’s Convention, which I believe is the ugly stepchild of White Nationalism. The Black People’s Convention held its first national congress at Hammarskraal last year. It was only for themselves. It is the first political party for Blacks—again the term “Black”, includes Africans, Coloureds and Indians—since the P.A.C. and the A.N.C. were banned in the ’sixties. It is certainly militant and uncompromising and against foreign investment in South Africa. It is against dialogue with South Africa, it is against capitalism and it is also, strangely enough, against Communism. I want to say in conclusion, and I want to say this categorically, that I believe that these young people are being punished for the views they hold and not for any subversive actions, and they are being punished drastically without trial. I have no doubt that had they committed any offence they would have been brought before the courts, for our Statute Book abounds with laws under which people who have committed any sin against the security of the State can be charged. It is clear to me that the Government hopes that by banning the leaders of SASO and the Black People’s Convention it will strangulate the organizations themselves. I want to say, if what has happened to Nusas as a result of the banning of Nusas leaders is anything to go by, that what the Government in fact has done by these actions is to give the kiss of life both to SASO and to the Black People’s Convention. This Government is so used to the fatalistic submission of Blacks to the policies that have been imposed on them up to now that it is completely unaware of the fact that young Black South Africans, the younger generation of Blacks, are simply not prepared to take its suppressive policies lying down any longer. It can ban leaders and others will rise up in their place because the Government has itself spawned an indestructible Black Nationalism which all of us are going to live to regret and which is, after all, only a byproduct of White nationalism. Sir, I wish to condemn in the strongest possible terms the drastic action which has been taken in banning these eight young Black leaders without trial.

Mr. Speaker, in the five minutes that will be available to me before you are obliged to call on the hon. the Minister I would like briefly to state our own attitude towards this matter. In the first place I would like to say that in this debate we are not concerned with the content of SASO, its motives, its motivations or objectives. So far as we on this side of the House see it, we are concerned with the whole principle of the executive deprivation of liberty without recourse to the courts. That is what this is about. Sir, typical of the hon. member for Houghton, she says that she has no confidence in the Schlebusch Commission and then she bleats and carps because the hon. the Prime Minister did not refer the matter of SASO to the commission for investigation. You cannot have it both ways. We believe as we have, as we do and as we will, that the foundation upon which the whole fabric of our society rests is the freedom, the dignity and the integrity of the individual, whether he is White or whether he is Black—that freedom exercised within the law.

And the other side of the coin is the safety of the State.

I know, I am coming to that. It is the function of the courts in our Constitution and in accordance with our heritage, our joint heritage, to determine whether and how any such rights are to be exercised or are to be restricted. If the behaviour or even the intentions of people are considered to be inimical or dangerous to the safety of the State or of ordered society, it is the duty of the Government to ensure that the law itself prohibits such behaviour, so that the courts can determine in the first place whether in fact there has been a transgression of the law, whether they have in fact done these things and, in the second place, what deprivation of liberty or what punishment should be suffered by such persons for a transgression of that law. One must never forget in these matters that law and order is a state of affairs which goes hand in hand with the rule of law. One cannot speak of the rule of law or of recourse to courts if one does not have as a matter of fact in one’s country a state of law and order. That is why we on this side of the House have indicated from time to time that we are not prepared to tolerate the disruption of law and order in this country by anyone. Nor are we prepared to accept that any disruption of law and order or an attempt to disrupt law and order, or violence in any form, can possibly be regarded in our country as a legitimate political force, or norm, or modus operandi. That is why we have supported urgent measures where it was necessary to restore law and order urgently—so that steps could be taken to provide a state of law and order within which our democratic society can survive. This Government must learn the lesson that you can only have law and order on a permanent basis if you have the co-operation of the public and the public dislikes arbitrary, despotic, unnecessary powers such as the power used here to ban these eight persons. This sort of power, the exercising of such power, alienates the necessary support of the people whereas, if justice were done in the courts and if justice were seen to be done, we would have a chance of a permanent state of order and content in this country. The charge against this Government is that, after 25 years, they are still unable to produce laws setting out what behaviour is in fact unlawful, undesirable and dangerous. They have been unable to do so. I say that reasonable legislation to deal with such a state of affairs would receive the support of this side of the House.

Cathy has tamed them.

Once one has this state of affairs, one can take them to court. The stage we have reached is that the Government is unable to govern this country by any normal democratic processes. If they were to take our advice, they would restore not just a state of affairs in which every citizen, White or Black, would feel safe in this country and would support the maintenance of law and order, but would also restore to us an image to which this sort of power does more harm and tarnishes more than anything else there is.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton really surprises me. We have been sitting together in this House for 20 years—we both came here in 1953—and I do not know of one single instance in the course of those 20 years when she supported the Government in steps it had to take to place security legislation on the Statute Book. I do not know of one single instance when she did not attack us—in former years from the United Party benches and in recent years from her one-man party—on any administrative steps taken by us in connection with the security of the country. One can predict exactly what she is going to do, as she has demonstrated again here this afternoon. Of course it is difficult to say what the United Party will do. The fact of the matter is, of course, that the United Party voted against the original Act and against all the amendments as well. They once supported us in connection with the Terrorism Act, but even then they did not support us in all the stages. I think they only supported us at the Second Reading. That is all they have done over all these years.

The hon. member for Houghton made quite a number of quotations in regard to what has allegedly been said and done by these good Black boys and what their objectives are, but in turn I want to quote to her some of the views expressed by these people. Here, for example, a meeting is being addressed at Turfloop—

On another occasion the following was said—

On another occasion the following was said—

On another occasion those same people quoted by the hon. member said the following—

On another occasion the following was said by one of the gentlemen quoted by the hon. member—

I want to quote someone else to her—

The following is a song which the hon. member certainly knows, for it is sung fairly often. This is the way it begins—

Mr. Speaker, experience has taught us that you cannot fight everything in the courts. There are other methods, too, that can be followed, as long as we stay within the framework of the law. We are taking preventive measures in regard to these people, so that worse things may not happen than those that happened during the Paarl riots and the Bashee bridge murders. But if you use this kind of language to which I have referred and if these things are said and said repeatedly, then it culminates in violence. And, as the Minister concerned who happens to be charged with the execution of this duty, I should be guilty of gross carelessness and neglect of duty towards the public of South Africa if I do not take action in good time. I believe that it is better to restrict eight people, some of whom receive financial aid as well, than to end up by having bloodshed and violence in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who served on a select committee prior to the Suppression of Communism Act being placed on the Statute Book in this Parliament. I remember very well the discussions we had in respect of the definition of “Communism”, statutory Communism and the manner in which attempts were made to widen the scope of that definition by Government members on that select committee. I remember that even after all the time and trouble they took they found their definition still not wide enough and they introduced amending legislation to make it wider still so as to cover every conceivable type of crime which could affect the safety of the State. My question to the hon. the Minister is a perfectly simple one. If what he has read out is correct and is supported by any overt Acts of any kind, why is he neglecting his duty by not bringing these people before the courts?

Hear, hear!

That is what we want to know. It is perfectly simple.

You give them a platform.

The hon. the Minister says it gives them a platform. If they are convicted and sentenced under the Suppression of Communism Act as defined in this country they can be put away for years and years. By giving them a platform it will serve as a example to everyone in South Africa who is trying to advance revolutionary aims that they would know that they would be brought before the courts and locked up. What is the hon. the Minister doing? He is banning them on grounds which we cannot test and which have never been tested before a court. He has earned sympathy for them throughout the world. The whole of the Press tomorrow will be saying that the Minister has made out no case at all. What is he doing? He is taking arbitrary action which cannot be tested in a court of law.

I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that he has a great duty to maintain law and order in South Africa. Taking steps of this kind is going to make the position much worse. It is not going to improve matters. What the hon. gentleman should do is to have these people brought before the courts. Charge them. Why not? The hon. the Minister says it will give them a platform. A platform for what? Is it a platform to spread doctrines for which they can be punished and everybody knows they can be punished, and sees them being punished? This is an incomprehensible attitude. I make no bones about it. It is typical of the utter contempt this Government has for the regular process of law in South Africa. There is nothing that does our name more harm overseas than this sort of action by this Government on this sort of matter.