Mr. Speaker, when I dealt with this matter last night, I pointed out that it was very dear that we are faced here with a problem of effective consultation. According to our information, it appears that at the beginning of 1971 a visit was paid by the chief director of the department as well as two members of the then Bophuthatswana Government to the people of Mayen for the purpose of explaining the removal to them. A departmental communication was also addressed to the Bophuthatswana Government, in which the matter was put to the Bophuthatswana Government on behalf of the department. As far as the aforementioned communication is concerned, I am still under the impression that it was said that the Bophuthatswana Government had not reacted to it—if I understand it correctly—and that that Government had consequently not expressed itself either for or against the removal of the people of Mayen to this new area. Furthermore, as far as the Mayen people themselves are concerned, no clear indication was obtained as to whether they were in favour of the removal or opposed to it. If I am, once again, interpreting the course of events correctly, this silence gave rise to the conclusion that these people did not oppose the removal and were consequently in agreement with it, and that on the basis of that silence the department was free to proceed with the removal. I want to say at once that it is an unfortunate state of affairs in which this House finds itself and in which I personally find myself, i.e. to use this conclusion which is drawn from their silence to justify the assumption that these people are in agreement with the removal. From the nature of the case it would have been far easier if this House had been notified whether the people were for or against it or whether the Bophuthatswana Government was for or against it. If we had known that they were against it, this House could then have taken a decision with full regard to the possible implications if that removal had had to be enforced. If I am interpreting the information correctly, we once again find ourselves completely in the dark as far as this matter is concerned. There are a number of possible ways in which the question “how should we interpret that silence” may be answered. If we consider the inhabitants of the Mayen reserve, the only possibility is that they could be adopting an attitude of silence because they do not want to say “yes”, because they do not want to approve of it and perhaps, too, because they want to adopt the attitude that they do not want to consent to it of their own volition or on their own initiative, for none of us readily parts with something we already have. That is certainly a possibility. In other words, they could be adopting the attitude: We are not going to move voluntarily, but if you force us to go, we will go; for that reason we are not going to give our consent to this in advance. That is a possibility. The other possibility is that they do not want to say “no”, because they fear the possible consequences of doing so, for example, services which could be curtailed, and so on. When I say this, I think it is well known that when Bantu communities refused in the past to comply with the requests of the department when they were asked to move to a particular area, they sometimes had to pay the price of this action in the form of services and other facilities which were not made available to them. I am thinking, for example, of the years when we used all the means at our command to make the system of Bantu authorities acceptable to the Bantu peoples. It is possible that these people do not want to say “no” because they fear that if they should do so they will be punished or intimidated in some way or other for having said so. I say I am merely discussing possibilities. I say that I am faced with the problem of not knowing what interpretation to attach to the silence which they apparently maintained. I have to take these two possibilities into account. I want to repeat that it was the duty of the department to have come to us and said: Look this is the result of our observations and our consultations. The people want to move or they do not want to move. That is the task of the department. How can we judge the justness and fairness of this action if we do not have those basic facts? The same applies in regard to the silence of the Bophuthatswana Government. The same possibilities apply in their case as well. They might say that they do not want to express an opinion—I say this is a possibility—because they fear possible political repercussions. Then, too, they might be in favour of the removal. They might think it is a good thing and essential, but because they are also politicians, as are hon. members in this House, they might not say it openly because it might have political or party-political repercussions in the area. That is a possibility. But it is also a possibility that the Government does not want to say no because it fears that if it were to say no, it could lead to all kinds of other implications and that it could, more specifically, prejudice the relation between the Government and the department. Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, my problem is that I am completely in the dark as to how these people really feel about this matter.

You have said so twelve times already.

The matter is further complicated for me by the letter the hon. member for Houghton quoted here last night.

Only one letter.

Yes, we all know that it was only one letter; but do let me continue, please.

Order! It is only the hon. member for Edenvale who has the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Houghton quoted here from a letter in which the writer claimed that that letter also reflected the opinion of some or other chief in the Reserve. Moreover, I gathered from what the hon. member for Houghton said that according to her information, there was in fact fairly strong opposition to the removal among the people in the Reserve. Sir, I am not in a position to accept the truth of that communication or those statements, but in the same way I am not in a position to gainsay or disprove the correctness of the contents of that letter. I only wish to express the hope that the Deputy Minister will give us detailed information here about the particulars which were imparted to us by the hon. member for Houghton during the course of this discussion in this House. I am not in a position to comment on that. It may be that that letter is in fact representative. It may be that the information the hon. member for Houghton has at her disposal is not completely reliable, but then it is nevertheless the duty of the department to give us that information here to enable us to form a truly honest opinion in regard to this matter. In this regard I should like to emphasize, Sir, that I was unaware—possibly it is my own fault that I did not make the necessary inquiries at the Select Committee meeting—that these people of Mayen had already been moved from their former homes to Mayen; and now they are being asked to move again from Mayen to another area. Mr. Speaker, these are the things which create bitterness in South Africa—I repeat, if the information is correct. For it would in fact place a heavier burden on us if it means that one group could simply be move from one place to another and could, after having arrived there, be moved once again to another place. In this way we will certainly be unable, either to achieve stability, or to gain the goodwill of people. Mr. Speaker, in the third place I want to repeat very clearly that if what I deduced from the particulars is correct, a mere communication in writing to the Bophuthatswana Government is surely not sufficient to ascertain the attitude of the Bophuthatswana Government in this regard. If there had in fact been consultation, we ought to have been informed in this House of the results of that consultation. We should not be placed in the position where we have to base our decision purely on the fact that a communication was addressed to the Bophuthatswana Government did not react to it, Sir, when we are dealing with removals, I want to assume that it is after all necessary to act in the spirit of section 5 of Act 38 of 1927. That section provides—and I shall go into it further at a later stage—in very simple terms, if I may take the liberty of quoting it to you—

The procedure according to which this shall take place is laid down—

In other words, if we have to go so far as to make section 5 applicable to this case, the section provides very clearly that that removal must take place in accordance with conditions which arise from negotiations between the Minister and the Government concerned. I just want to say, Sir, that a letter is not a negotiation in terms of and in the spirit of the provisions of section 5 of the Act; surely this is quite clear. Consultation has to take place. In this regard I want to say that the definition of the word “Minister” is very clear; this is not a delegated power. In terms of the section as it stand, it means the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development or another Minister of State who is acting in his place. Neither the Secretary nor any other official, according to my interpretation of the Act, has the right to conduct those negotiations. Even if we were to say that we were not going to make section 5 applicable in this instance—and I am coming back to that later—I still want to say that when it comes to the removal of tribes, it seems obvious to me that we should act in the spirit of section 5; in other words, that the matter should not only be treated with the utmost circumspection, it should also be conducted at the highest level, i.e. by the hon. the Minister or Deputy Minister and the relevant Government of the homeland concerned. This seems obvious to me. Sir, it is especially clear when we take into consideration that tribes which are under a removal order were deprived of a fundamental right last year. As you know, the original section 5 determined, if I may repeat it, that whenever he deems it expedient in the general public interest, the State President may order the removal of any tribe or portion of a tribe, or of any Bantu, from any place to any other place in the Republic, subject to such conditions as he may determine, provided that if a tribe objects to the removal, no such order shall be of any force and effect unless or until a resolution approving of the removal has been adopted by both Houses of Parliament. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this discussion, but the attitude of arrogance and of unconcern for the rights of voiceless human beings shown in some parts of this House last night, was so appalling that one cannot possibly leave this subject as it is, and this is really what I want to discuss. We are constantly having people paying lip service to the rights of other human beings, but when it comes to the crush, then they do not care a damn. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton last night produced evidence of opposition to this removal on the part of at least some of the inhabitants of this area. This was written evidence in the form of a letter from someone in authority, but what is the reaction that we get from the other side? I am not going to refer to the insinuations that were made here last night. I think it is better in the interests of the House that they be forgotten, but I will say that these representations are dismissed off-hand as being either phoney or as being of no concern and of no consequence to anybody. Someone got up and said it was only one letter and what can you judge from one letter? This, Sir, is a genuine letter and anyone who has seen it or has read it will know that it was written with deep sincerity and deep concern; yet it is simply dismissed as being nothing. We simply cannot go on in that way. What other evidence is needed? How many letters must we receive from people who are voiceless and who are concerned about their situation? It was argued that some of these people moved out of their own free will. What on earth does that mean? There are some people I would like to move far away from; but this does not for a moment suggest that everybody or even a majority of the people wanted to move. The point we want to make is that we simply do not know because we have no evidence of anybody having been meaningfully consulted. Under those circumstances I cannot possibly vote for the recommendation. We are simply told that in the view of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development removal of the Bantu and their resettlement are “in their best interests”. That may be so. I do not know. All I can say is that neither the Select Committee nor the hon. the Minister nor the hon. the Deputy Minister have taken the trouble to inform us. We now learn, not from the printed document before us, that there was no unanimity, but that there was a dispute in the Select Committee on this issue. Can the Minister or the Deputy Minister tell us what was the basis of this opposition, the basis of the dispute? Surely, if we are asked as members of this House to approve this recommendation we should be in possession of at least some of the facts. Or are we just simply expected to rubberstamp recommendations of this nature that come to us? No, I do not believe that our self-respect will allow this kind of thing.

I say that I am not satisfied with this document because I do not believe that there was proper consultation with these people who were to be removed and that there is evidence to suggest that there was considerable opposition to this removal. This is the point I want to make: I do not believe it is enough to tell people, even the most unsophisticated people, that it will be “good” for them to move or that it is in their interests to move. We know what a desperately sensitive situation this is, what a desperately sensitive issue the removal of people is, and what ill-feeling it can produce. That we can come at a time like this with an act of such insensitivity is absolutely appalling. I say again that we often hear lip service being paid to decent human relations. The Prime Minister has appealed to us in all sincerity to produce the kind of human relations that everybody wants in this country. But when it comes to the crux, the rank and file on the other side of the House have 5 000 excuses as to why there is nothing that they can do about it. I say it is against this background of unconcern that I want to protest most strongly. It shows an insensitivity in a sensitive area at a time when everybody should be bending over backwards to show concern for the feelings of fellow human beings which, after all, they are, however difficult it is to realize that when one listens to some of those off-stage noises that come from the back benches. This unconcern, this insensitivity, this “we know what is good for you” is, I suggest, the worst form of paternalism which should have no place in the South Africa of 1974. [Interjections.] Sir, there you can hear the off-stage noises. [Interjections.] This is a frightening manifestation of insensitivity and unconcern. This whole incident, in regard to the Select Committee and its report, is such a shocking example of this unconcern for people, for fellow human beings, that I refuse to vote for the motion before the House.

Just before I reply to the hon. member for Parktown, I want to tell the hon. member for Eden-vale that his entire argument centred round possibilities or “ifs”. I just want to tell him that if the impossible should happen and the sky should fall, we would all have lark-pie for supper.

Today we are engaged here in moving a section of the Tswana people, and where any removal takes place, be it of Whites or non-Whites, there are bound to be problems. Not everyone will be happy. There is bound to be a section of these people, of this section of that non-White population group, which feels unhappy about it. We accept that, but it still has to be done, for the benefit of that community. I want to give the assurance here today that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and its officials are doing their best to investigate and solve those problems, in such a way as to entail the minimum amount of distress for those persons who are directly involved. I want to compliment the department for having done everything in its power in this case as well. It has become necessary for this Bantu location of Mayen, as it is known, to be removed.

Name the reasons.

Yes, I shall name the reasons. Irrespective of the fact that the removal fits in with our new consolidation programme for that area, I can prove that it will also be to the benefit of these persons. Here before me I have a White Paper of 1973 which was submitted to us by the Department of Water Affairs. Here is a map on which I have indicated the area, and I shall also show it to hon. members. On this spot a dam, the Spitskop Dam, is being built in that area. If that dam is built and these people are not moved, we would be creating an island there. These people will be cut off from their true Bantu homeland. You may ask me whether the construction of the dam will be to the benefit of those people. Where these people are living at present they will not be able to make use of any irrigation lands. I want to tell hon. members in this House that the Mayen location is so situated that those people cannot in any way use that water to their benefit. The whole speech of the hon. member for Edenvale was based on possibilities. I want to tell him how justly this department acted. Over and above the removal which is going to take place, the department also conducted a soil survey of the area to which these Bantu will be moved. The whole world is being told that we are allegedly treating these people so unjustly. I just want to mention that the land these people will receive in compensation, compares very favourably with the land they have at present. In fact, they are going to be better off. They are not being deprived of one iota of land. On the contrary. More land is being given to them. All things considered, these people are getting approximately 800 ha more land for future expansion. Here is the plan, and each one of the hon. members can come and have a look at it. When they look at it, they will see that once the removal has taken place, the consolidated area will present a far more favourable picture. Last night the hon. member for Houghton had so many objections to the so-called inhuman action of the Government, of this side of the House. In reply to that I want to say that negotiations were commenced as long ago as 1971. After two members of the then Bophuthatswana Government had made representations to the people, 168 families moved and settled in the new area. No one threatened those families or told them that they had to go or that if they did not go action would be taken against them, as the hon. member stated. I want to tell the hon. member for Edenvale that those people moved of their own volition. But that is not all; hon. members can read the Bantu Land Act of 1913 and the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936 and they will find that it was laid down at that time that the persons involved in removals had to be protected. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. members of the Opposition. Come and tell us where the department or the Government has not up to the present acted honestly in respect of Black people. Name one place where we acted cruelly or took the people by the scruff of the neck and forced them out? There were indeed certain removals which did not take place smoothly, and this I accept, but one encounters stubborn people too. I have a pure and clear conscience because I know that the people who were removed from certain areas were always moved to better areas.

I want to come to what the hon. member for Houghton said last night. What she did was not nice at all. For whose consumption did she make those remarks of hers last night? Was it to blazon abroad the news, and to illustrate to the world how barbaric and cruel the National Party Government is in respect of the non-White population groups in the country? She said yesterday evening, and I just want to quote a short paragraph from her speech:

We may differ with one another in the political sphere, and we may differ at any level and argue about matters, fight about them and subsequently reach finality on them, but this type of statement—such as this statement made by the hon. member for Houghton, to which I referred a moment ago—is not to the benefit of the country.

It is the truth.

Had I been a Bantu in South Africa today and had I read this speech, I would have hated the White man with a hatred that I would never relinquish. It is through speeches of this kind that we are inciting the Black people, and it is not fair.

What you are doing is playing.

Of course, there are heart-aches and problems with any removal of people, but this also applies to the White man who has lived on a farm for generations, and who, in terms of this consolidation, has to leave his farm. Are any pleas made in this House on behalf of these people? Are any pleas made on behalf of the White people who, also on account of this consolidation, have to move away with tears in their eyes from the farms where they were born, and who have to make other sacrifices as well? Does the Progressive Party plead on behalf of these people? No, pleas are only made on behalf of the Black man in order to incite him against the Whites of South Africa. It is time we did some plain speaking.

They get compensation.

That hon. member must please keep quiet. The hon. member for Orange Grove should see what he did to his predecessor a short while ago. [Interjections.] He should cast his mind back a bit and first set his own house in order.

We, too, did a removal in terms of group areas!

What I said applies to the hon. member for Parktown as well. [Interjections.] Are hon. members aware of everything that has been done by the department and the Government? Are they aware that discussions were held with these people? If this hon. member, who is a professor, becomes a member of a Select Committee, he should know what is happening. This afternoon he was better informed of the circumstances of this matter than he was last night. I do not think he knew what he was talking about last night. No doubt it troubled him, and that is why he inquired this morning about the consolidation which has already taken place and about the discussions between this Government and the Government of Bophuthatswana in respect of the removal of those people. Now the hon. member is shaking his head. When he shakes his head like that, I can hear it over here. [Interjections.] I say again—and with that I conclude—that I have an absolutely pure and clear conscience that everything is being done here to the benefit of the Bantu who are going to be removed. I want to emphasize again that among those Bantu there are indeed persons who feel heartsore because they have to move to a new area, but this is being done for the benefit of not only the Bophuthatswana Government or the uniformity of consolidation, but also to the benefit of those people themselves. I believe that among these persons—and then I am not even speaking about the one letter—there is a great deal of agitation, not about the removal of these people, but about other activities taking place there. I think I should rather resume my seat at this point.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Stilfontein is very eloquent; he puts a strong case but in so doing he destroys his own case. The hon. member for Stilfontein waxed eloquent about the Bantu Trust Act and other Bantu legislation that has been passed through this House. He says that this legislation was passed with the object of protecting the Bantu people. Do I misquote the hon. member? Did he in fact say that there were provisions in the Bantu Trust Act, the Bantu Administration Act, and so on, to protect and defend the Bantu people?

That legislation is in their interests.

We are ad idem on this point. I want to say to him that this afternoon we are engaged here with a subterfuge to take away that protection from the Bantu people. That is what the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing here this afternoon. I am prepared to excuse the hon. member for Stilfontein for not realizing this. If I could have the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister he would see what I am referring to.

I am sure you do not believe it.

I do believe it and I am sure that if that hon. member has any brains and the capacity to understand the argument I am putting across, he will believe it too. In terms of the amendment to section 5 of the Bantu Administration Act, No. 38 of 1927, which was passed in this House in 1973, a new subsection (1) (b) was substituted. What is the effect of this paragraph? The effect is that whenever the State President deems it expedient and in the general public interest that any Bantu people should move, he may issue an order ordering their removal after the department and the hon. the Minister have gone through certain formalities. But this paragraph also has a proviso and this is one of the protections I am sure the hon. member for Stilfontein refers to when he says that these Acts are passed for the protection of the Bantu people. The first proviso to this paragraph reads as follows—

What does this mean? It means that any Bantu who are resident on scheduled land, namely land specified in the Schedule to the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936, may not be removed, not even under an order of the State President, without the approval of this House and the Other Place. Has the hon. the Deputy Minister come to us today to ask us to approve the removal of these people? I want to say that the answer is “No”. Instead of coming to us in a direct manner and saying: “Here are these people who in their best interests should be moved. We are presenting the case to you as to why they should be moved and we ask the permission of this House and of the Other Place for the serving of an order by the State President on these people that they should be moved,” the hon. the Deputy Minister comes with a subterfuge. He comes with a resolution to excise the land from the Schedule of the Bantu Trust and Land Act. In this way he removes from those Bantu in Mayen—I sincerely hope that the hon. member for Stilfontein and the other clever gentlemen who interjected a moment ago are now listening—the very protection which this House gave them.

You are talking nonsense.

I am not. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister deny the correctness of my argument?

But of course.

But of course what?

What is correct?

What I have just said is correct and any person on that side with a modicum of intelligence will agree that I am correct. Here is a provision, providing protection for these Black people, which was inserted in this Act at the instance of that hon. Deputy Minister who handled the amending Bill, and which was put there for the specific protection of people under the very circumstances that we are faced with today, but the hon. the Deputy Minister does not use it. Instead of using it he comes, as I have said, through the back door and, rather than ask Parliament to authorize the enforcement of an order of the State President that these people should be removed or that they should move, decides to have a piece of land on which they are resident excised from the Schedule of the Bantu Trust and Land Act. In this way he circumvents the provisions of Parliament and the will of Parliament, where Parliament decided that it wanted to protect those Black people. That protection is today being withdrawn, being taken away by this hon. Deputy Minister and by that Government on the other side. Do you then wonder, Sir, that we are opposed to this removal today, for that reason if for no other reason?

But let us go further into this matter. What I have said so far is sufficient reason for me to oppose this and for all right-thinking people in this House to do so, and I sincerely hope that I appeal to those people on the other side of the House who also have a heart and who also have a sense of fairness and justice. Fairness and justice are not being exercised today in respect of these people.

But let us go further. The whole question of consultation has been argued here since yesterday evening. What consultation exactly did take place? We do not know, because we did not get any evidence in the Select Committee to this effect. I am a member of that Select Committee. We were not given any evidence whatsoever of consultation which had taken place. I cannot blame the hon. member for Lichtenburg, who is the chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission, personally for it, because he was not the chairman of the commission at the time when what negotiations there was must have taken place. However, today he holds that high position. What does he tell us? I can only guess that he speaks with authority. If anybody in this House has access to all the information which is necessary and available, he has. He told us last night: “The department advised the Bophuthatswana government.” They were advised of the intention of the Government. Is that consultation? We heard from the hon. the Minister, who is not here, only two days ago on another matter that this is what they consider to be consultation. That side of the House regards as consultation the fact that the Bophuthatswana Government was advised. He goes on to say: “The Bophuthatswana Government did not react.” They did not reply. So, in the words of my hon. friend from Edenvale, because they did not reply, we can accept that they have agreed. Trying to defend the whole question of consultation, he goes further: “The Bophuthatswana Government and the people were adequately advised.” Sir, in this way he discharges the onus of consulting. I want to ask you, Sir, with tears in my eyes: Why did they not get together with the tribe concerned? Why did they not get together with the Bophuthatswana Government and talk with them? They are people. They are people of intelligence. They are people of reasonable mind. They are people with whom you can talk. But I do not think this Government has realized or learn yet that you can talk with these people. The Government is not used to talking with them; they only talk at them. That is all they do. That is all they are used to. The hon. member for Lichtenburg went further: “The department came in touch with the Bophuthatswana Government and with the Mayen Bantu.” That is consultation. I ask you. Sir! But you know, Sir, that is more evidence than we received in the Select Committee. When we asked what the attitude of the Bophuthatswana Government was regarding the removal of these people, the evidence we were given was the following: “We cannot expect active assistance from the Bophuthatswana Government.” But. Sir, members of this House have tried to make out that the silence of the Bophuthatswana Government, their failure to react to certain advices which they received, should be construed as consent.

Then we had the hon. member for Kimberley North saying that this move was in the best interests of the people concerned.

It is so. It is true.

The hon. member for Stilfontein says it is the truth. Who decided that it was in the best interests of these people?

You cannot.

Exactly. This is exactly my point. Of course I cannot, because I have not got the evidence. I have no information at my disposal. No information was made available to me in the Select Committee. No information was made available to this House either. We are now being asked to apply our minds to this matter and decide whether or not it is in the best interests of these people that they should move. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not ask us that. All he said was: Let us excise this piece of ground from the Schedule to the Bantu Trust and Land Act. After that, he will remove them. However, we have to look to the interests of these people as well. When I say that we were not given any evidence whether or not this move was advisable or in the best interests of these people, I also want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he will tell this House why the fact that this was the second occasion on which this tribe of Bantu was being removed, was withheld. Why was this fact not mentioned in the papers which were laid before us in the Select Committee?

Why was this point not adduced when we asked for evidence in the Select Committee? Why was this fact hidden? Has the hon. the Deputy Minister forgotten the trouble he had when he moved them last time? Did he perhaps think that he might be able to hide the fact this time? Did he perhaps think that he might be able to get away with it without the adverse publicity which the Government, the department and the whole of South Africa got in this regard?

I am not trying to hide anything. You are talking nonsense.

The whole of South Africa suffered because of this fact. The adverse publicity given to the last removal of these people affected the whole of the Republic of South Africa.

The removal of these people?

Yes. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister deny that they were removed before?

I did not know it last night. I shall reply to you in due course.

Oh, so the hon. the Deputy Minister did not know last night that they had been removed previously? I accept the bona fides of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I accept his statement that he did not know last night. However, I want to ask him then what he is going to do about the Bantu Affairs Commission and the officials of his department who are not keeping him advised as to the true facts. Why was this fact withheld even from the hon. the Deputy Minister, let alone from members of the Select Committee? Why were we not told these things? This is an important issue especially when we are given evidence in the Select Committee that 168 families moved in 1970 but that about 270 families were not willing to move. However, hon. members opposite, including the members of the Bantu Affairs Commission said that there was no opposition to the move. The evidence we were given on the Select Committee was that about 270 families were not willing to move. This is over 1000 souls. Let us take this point further. What other evidence did we receive in the Select Committee? When the hon. member for Umhlatuzana asked in the Select Committee whether it was anticipated that there would be any trouble if these people were forced to move, do you know what the answer was? The answer was: We will ensure that the Police are nearby.

What a disgraceful state of affairs!

Is it in the best interests of South Africa that this sort of thing should happen? Let us for a moment disregard the interests of these 1 000 souls. Let us look at the country as a whole. Is it in the best interests of South Africa that these people should be forced to move with the threat of the Police over the hill?

You are talking nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense. It is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister standing up just now and challenging my patriotism.

You are stirring up feelings.

I am not stirring up anything at all and I resent that remark by the hon. Chief Whip on the other side. I want to say that if anybody is guilty of stirring up feelings and hatred between the races it is that Nationalist Party led by that Chief Whip. It is that party and this sort of thing that we have been asked to pass this afternoon that stirs up racial feelings. These are people with feelings, people with rights. These are rights which have been given to them by this Parliament and which are this afternoon being circumvented by subterfuge on the part of that hon. Deputy Minister. We are being asked to vote for this.

I want to conclude on this note. I deeply regret that in view of the facts that have only this afternoon come to our notice, the facts that we have now been able to adduce, it is impossible for us to vote for this motion as it is merely another way of circumventing the rights of these Black people who have already been pushed around once and who are now in the process of being pushed around a second time, for what reason we do not know. No good reason has been advanced whatsoever as to why these people should be removed from one point to the other. In view of these facts, we shall most certainly vote against this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and especially the hon. member for Edenvale remind me of the man who arrived late at work and who, when confronted by his employer said, “Sir, my wife keeps on talking and talking and talking”. When the employer asked him what she talked about he replied, “She did not say, Sir.” That is also my difficulty with those two hon. members. Mr. Speaker, we have had quite a bit of emotion regarding this matter and that is understandable. If you move people, whether they are Coloured or White, we can expect people to become emotional.

*Sir, it is essential that we consider these matters very calmly, and especially that we do not try to create the impression that the Government adopts an unfeeling attitude, as was suggested on the opposite side, towards people and their interests and their needs, for if there is any group of people that has an interest in the goodwill of the Black people, it is the Department of Bantu Administration and Development which, from day to day, consults these people and deals with their problems in a very sympathetic manner and does its best to be of service to them. This is also the approach adopted by the political head of that department, the hon. the Minister, and by myself. I want to state very clearly that we approach the problems of all these people very sympathetically. But, Sir, then we also come to the overall problems in a country such as this and in the world in general. This Government has a policy which is aimed at serving and protecting the interests of minority groups within our broad population structure. The hon. member for Parktown said here that they would like to see how these things were being done. Their policy is one of laissez-faire, of let there be an integrated society. Sir, we have the interests of every one of these minority groups at heart, and if one advocates a policy in line with that, one must also be prepared to deal with the problems which accompany the implementation of a policy of that kind, and this Government is not afraid of doing so. Therefore, I say here very emphatically that what is being done, is also being done and is especially being done in the interests of the various communities, and in this instance also in the interests of the inhabitants of Mayen. Sir, there are various places where we effected removals in the past, and there are various places where we will have to effect removals in the future. The hon. member for Houghton referred to Doringkop and Stinkwater; I cannot remember the other places she mentioned.

And Limehill.

In future we shall also have to effect removals at Kromkrans and Braklaagte. Why do we move the people? The impression is created here that we move Black people simply because we enjoy doing so and, as they say, for the sake of ideologies. We move them for the sake of practical realities, in their own interests. Sir, if you were to go to Doringkop and Kromkrans, you would see the atrocious squatters’ conditions prevailing there. What would happen if an epidemic broke out there? Last year one newspaper correspondent after another phoned and said, “The people are dying at Kromkrans; there is an epidemic; what are you doing?” Sir, the medical authorities tell us that one cannot exercise health control in such a place; it is just not possible; there is no pure water and there is no control, and there are a considerable number of places such as these in the country. Sir, it is the State’s responsibility to move the inhabitants of those areas, in their own interests, to areas in which sanitary facilities are in fact available and in which one can in fact provide health services on a sound basis. There are many such places in the country, but it is blazed abroad here time and again, with a great deal of emotion, that this Government moves people callously. These people are moved in their own interests, and that is the case here as well.

I now want to refer to the letter the hon. member for Houghton quoted here. Firstly, I want to tell her there is no chief Moseki in that area. In that letter they say that the title deeds to that particular land are in Pretoria, and that they were handed over to the Government by some priest or other. Sir, for many years now title deeds relating to that area are not being dealt with by Pretoria, but by the offices at Vryburg or at Kimberley. Therefore that statement is simply just another wild statement which someone made in a state of emotion, or perhaps deliberately, in the letter to the hon. member for Houghton. And yet it was served up here and accepted by the hon. member for Edenvale and others. It constitutes their only evidence. But now I should like to tell you, Sir, that we receive many emotional letters about removals, not only from Black people, but also from Whites. This morning there was a letter on my desk written by a White man to the hon. the Prime Minister, a letter charged with emotion and drama, but I do not come along and quote it in this House, and I do not use it on political platforms, because it would cause feelings to run high between race groups in this country. We receive numerous letters of this kind, and I have to go from place to place in the country to pacify communities, White communities, because we require land for the settlement of Black people. But for the purposes of political gain, a big fuss is kicked up here, in order to create false impressions, and I say I find this regrettable. I say it is a great pity that the hon. member for Houghton, in her enthusiasm to attempt to win a right of existence for her tiny party, rants and raves in that manner. [Interjections.]

We now come to the first removal. Yesterday evening I told the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that I did not know that there had been a removal, and I spent the morning having the department find out for me when there had been a removal at Mayen, and I have now ascertained when it was. The hon. member cast a reflection on the department by saying that it had allegedly failed to inform me and the Bantu Affairs Commission. The removal there took place in 1896, when the British colonial government moved people when the rinderpest broke out, and this, in case the hon. member should not know it, is a pest which is almost as bad as the Opposition.

On a point of order, Sir, were people not recently moved from Barkly East or Barkly West?

Not as far as I know.

On a point of order, Sir, may the hon. the Deputy Minister refer to the Opposition as being as bad as the rinderpest?

The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir. Here I have a full report on the matter, which I received from the department. In 1896 the rinderpest broke out in that area.

May I ask a question? I want to ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that people have been moved to Mamutla and Mayen during the past 10 years.

I have no knowledge of it, and I requested a full report.

Mamutla is an adjoining area.

Yes, I know it is an adjoining area. But people were not moved at Mamutla. That letter very clearly refers to the removal of people, but all we were able to trace in the department, with all possible assistance, was what happened in 1896 when the rinderpest broke out, when people’s live-stock were shot and they revolted. Now these things are being raked up here.

They were moved and they were told that the new place would be their permanent home.

Where does the hon. member get that from? The hon. member now says that those people were promised in 1896 that that place would be their permanent home. In 1896 when the people revolted, the British Government, the colonial government, moved certain of them.

Let us go further. Almost 80 years later those people’s problems are being attributed to the National Government. This is the type of thing which is served up here.

Were people not moved from Holpan in Barkly West to Mayen and Mamutla roundabout 1965?

I am not aware of it. As far as Mayen as such is concerned, there was no removal by our department. Families belonging to the Mayen tribe, might have been removed here and there. However, reference was made to a certain letter in connection with a recent removal. Yesterday evening an hon. member described the matter in highly emotional terms.

Never mind, we accept … [Interjections.]

No, wait a moment. The member said the following—

This is what was said here yesterday evening. If we did move people to Mayen or Mamutla, we did so with their co-operation. The impression the hon. member tried to create here yesterday evening and the letter the hon. member quoted here, clearly referred to what happened in 1856. This is all the information I could obtain. I want to say in all earnestness that we should not just seize upon one single letter. It may create a totally false impression. A certain chief signed the letter, but we have no knowledge of this chief. Yet the letter is quoted here as though it is the gospel truth and as though it is the Government of the day which is committing these inhuman acts. This idea that we are only interested in the Whites and do not treat the Black man sympathetically, must be eradicated. I object to it most strongly. I work with the Bantu Affairs Commission and dedicated officials day and night to treat these people as well as possible and to act in their best interests. And yet we are constantly being accused of having no feeling for the people and the so-called proof which is furnished, is a load of rubbish, rubbish of the kind that was dished up here this afternoon and yesterday evening. Yesterday the hon. member for Kimberley North said that there were Whites in Taung who had to be moved. They have been to see me a few times and they have tremendous problems. But we do not come along here and say, “Look at what is happening to the White people”. We could also try to make capital out of it at election time. Let us differ, therefore, but let the matter be handled calmly and decently. I think we have listened to the hon. member for Houghton for long enough now.

†The hon. member for Umhlatuzana referred to the question of consultation. Other hon. members also referred to this topic.

*Hon. members on this side indicated very clearly that there was indeed liaison with these people. However, there is no need for us to reveal all the details here. Two years ago we spoke to Chief Mangope at Mafeking about this removal and also about other removals. He promised to go into the matter and let me know. Later on he informed me of problems at Zee-rust. Finally, he came along and spoke to the hon. the Minister. He said they did not see their way clear to effect the removals; we ourselves should see to them. Initially the arrangement was—and money was appropriated for this purpose—that they would effect the necessary removals. It appeared that they had problems with their people and that they were not prepared to run any risks. They said we should cope with them ourselves. There were written representations as well. However, no reply has been received up to the present. I want to repeat to hon. members that we held numerous discussions on this question of removal, from the Northern Transvaal to the South, with the political leaders of the homelands concerned. What is the predominating feeling? Some are prepared and sometimes eager to help us to get their people together. There is no doubt about that. The majority, however, feel that this is a delicate matter which we should rather not assign to them. They are not eager to do it; they tell us frankly that they run into political problems. One can accept this. That is why we discuss such affairs with them and the department does the work as far as possible.

I was asked what the reasons were for this removal. The hon. member for Stilfontein indicated on a map the situation of the dam, and so on. Here is the map, and if hon. members wanted to have more details in the Select Committee, they would certainly have been furnished with them. Here I am showing hon. members on the map that Mayen is situated at this spot, with the dam being built just above it. Hon. members can see on the map that those people are being cut off from their area altogether. That is the one reason. We know that the people would like to remain together as a community; that is why we are making provision for that. The second reason is that we want to maintain good human relations, as we want to do throughout the country. The Mayen area has extensive boundaries and there has been friction between Black and White at Mayen for many years. This is an additional reason. Strong representations in that regard have been received and we have experienced problems there. We should like to eliminate the points of friction. In certain instances Whites are being moved, but in this instance the friction, which we have to take into consideration, contributed to the removal having to be effected at Mayen. Then, our other problems are …

This is the first time we are hearing all these things.

If the hon. member had inquired intelligently, he would no doubt have obtained more particulars.

But did we not inquire intelligently? [Interjections.]

As far as the whole question of removal is concerned, I also want to say that Mayen is not a properly planned area. One of the major shortcomings of these Bantu areas is the degree of unplanned occupation we find there. We have millions of hectares of land in the country which are not being used productively because they are being occupied by a mass of people who are not active in the sphere of agricultural economics. Now we are getting the opportunity of placing them, and this is in the interests of those people, in a more densely occupied settlement which is properly planned with a view to agriculture. For those reasons, therefore, it is in the interests of both groups and especially in the interests of the population of Mayen, that they be moved.

I also want to react briefly to what I regard as a measure of exaggeration on that side of the House. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that “300 families or more or in the vicinity of 3 000 people” were being affected by this. In another discussion the other day I took exception because hon. members always mention exaggerated numbers. The hon. gentlemen are members of the Select Committee and they had the particulars before them. They know what the numbers are of the people to be moved and I can say right now that it is definitely far fewer than 3 000 people who are being affected by it. It is not even 300 families, but hon. members on this side of the house have already advanced arguments in this regard, and consequently I do not want to go into it any further. I just feel that we should not try to build a case on exaggerated figures.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South suggested that we tried to evade our responsibilities. In all honesty I want to say that we came to Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and the matter was first referred to a Select Committee before we could effect the removal at Mayen. There were discussions about it, frank discussions, emotional discussions drawling discussions—in fact, any kind of discussion. But now the hon. member comes along and charges us with trying to circumvent the Act. I think this is a bad mistake, but I want to leave it at that.

I also want to refer to an argument raised by the hon. member for Edenvale. He suggested that we were not making a fair exchange with these people. The Act of 1936 lays down that in the case of land having pastoral and agricultural value, land of an equal value should be given to them by way of compensation. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that, before submitting figures to the Select Committee, we make very sure that we are not making a mistake at the expense of the Black people. The figures were submitted. The land is excellent grazing land and according to my information—I myself visited Mayen and also saw the other land—that land, from an agricultural point of view, is in fact superior to the land at Mayen. That is why they ought to get an equal area. However, we are not only giving an equal area; we are giving 10% more. If we were to work it out, we should actually have given 11951 ha for Mayen, even with the increase, but they are getting 12 758 ha, which is almost 10% more than what, calculated conservatively, we should have given them. So, I feel that hon. members should not come along here and philosophize and cast reflections on a department which is intent on going out of its way to act justly, and even more than justly.

With that I think I have also replied to the hon. member for Parktown’s argument. I hope that, with this discussion today, we have at least brought it home to the Official Opposition and its satellite, which always tries to move as it moves, that we are really trying very earnestly, honestly and in a dedicated manner to do justice to the Black man, not to do him short in any way, but also to see to the interests of the White man in the process. It is most decidedly the case that emotions run very high when there is the slightest hint of the Black man’s rights being prejudiced, but as far as this is concerned, people tend to apply double standards. I think we should guard against this. In general the White man in this country, the Government and the Departments of Bantu Administration and Development and of Bantu Education in particular, do a great deal for the Black man, and this is something for which there should be great appreciation. I believe we should put a stop to this kind of reflection we constantly get. It forms part of a pattern which is not to the benefit of our country.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—92: Albertyn, J. T.; Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—42: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Mit chell, M. L.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I should like to elaborate on the recommendation to some extent. When the first report was debated, we found that hon. members said that they had insufficient information. I now just want to inform the hon. House of a few basic facts and I hope that this will be sufficient. I do not intend to be long-winded. If hon. members do not derive sufficient information from my explanation, I shall provide them with more later on.

In the first place I want to let it be known that discussions and negotiations concerning the possible purchase of Zebediela Estates and the properties it embraces have been under way now for a period of four years. To be specific, they were started in September 1970. An offer was made at that time on the initiative of the owners, and I had a discussion with them. There are a number of factors that have to be taken into account here. In the first place, we had to consider whether it fitted in suitably with the plan of consolidation; in the second place, this is, of course, a very well developed undertaking that is already world-famous, and we had to make sure that the property could be purchased on an economic basis. We therefore went into this offer very thoroughly. At the start we felt that it was not yet desirable for it to be included. We were uncertain about it. On the other hand the owners of this estate asked us to oblige them by not talking about it in public, because they had a large number of White employees who would naturally have been caused to feel uneasy and this could have caused problems. The matter was therefore discussed with them time and again on a confidential basis. This year it became reasonably clear how we should be able to consolidate there and how this piece of land could fit in properly with envisaged consolidation plans. Therefore the question of the price to be paid also had to be investigated and discussed with these people again. I can inform hon. members that we procured a number of valuations of the property. We procured the opinions of a number of experts on the property. It was very clear that the price at which they were offering the concern could, in my opinion, have been R4 million to R5 million less than a fair valuation. This was a very weighty consideration, and that is why we were also in a hurry to clinch the transaction. To be specific, the owners came to an agreement with us that they would accept that price as long as the transaction was finalized within a reasonable time. I mention the fact here, and I want to express my appreciation in this regard—I think it is necessary to do so—that these people, when they saw for themselves that we might require the land, did not insist on negotiations on the basis of the valuation of the land. I think it is fair to them that I let this be known here.

As a matter of information I also just want to say—this has already been stated by the hon. the Minister—that we do not see our way clear to taking over an undertaking of that nature and scope requiring a specialized management and where experts head the management, without taking over the existing management. The approach, therefore, is that that estate can only be taken over if we take over virtually the entire management, apart from the general manager. We should have liked to have retained his services as well. In terms of a provisional agreement they did in fact make him available to the department for a period of five years. The idea, of course, was that it was not practical for the department, as a Government department, to manage such an undertaking. The cumbersomeness of Government departments makes this quite impracticable. The idea, therefore, is that the Bantu Investment Corporation should take over the management and gradually include more Black people in the management. I just want to mention that as it stands today, the organization has already substantially reduced the number of Whites, who at the moment number about 70. It stands to reason that there is not much I can say about the profitability of the enterprise. In this regard I have information going back over a period of more than ten years which has been made available to us. However, hon. members will realize that in transactions of this nature, we cannot release all the details. I just want to tell hon. members that there are about 530 000 bearing citrus trees and that the ordinary, acceptable and current valuation is R10 per tree, although in certain cases we have paid more. We are paying about R5 million for these trees. Then there are 2 300 ha of irrigated land at R1 200 per ha, which is not high; there are also 700 ha of dry land and 10 000 ha of grazing. Hon. members will find that the valuation of the fixed property amounts to about R9 million. There are also, of course, many improvements in the form of White housing, Bantu housing, buildings, large barns, packing sheds and equipment which, conservatively estimated, could be about R2 million’s worth. I want to release these figures at an early stage without more ado, so that hon. members can know that we have really gone into this matter very thoroughly. The turnover and so on, and the running costs, are matters of a more confidential nature as far as this organization is concerned.

Finally, I should just like to emphasize something that has already been announced by the hon. the Minister, viz. that we have not yet decided which homeland this enterprise will go to. This is a somewhat problematical matter, but we shall settle the matter through negotiations with the homelands concerned. It is imperative that there be clarity in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, although the second report of the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs in its recommendation as placed before us suggests that this is merely a resolution to declare certain defined areas of land as released areas, it is quite clear from what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, and from what was placed before the Select Committee, that in reality this is a transaction of a very different kind. It is in fact the purchase of a very large enterprise, an agricultural enterprise but with such ramifications that it can be described almost as an industrial enterprise. I believe that in this instance there has been introduced what amounts virtually to a new principle in the purchase of assets for the use of the South African Bantu Trust. In the past we have had areas of land—in 99 cases out of a 100 farmland which in most instances was pastoral farmland rather than intensively developed agricultural land, generally speaking—in regard to which in most cases it has been a question of evaluation of the property, an adequate price being paid to the White owner and then the land’s being transferred to the Bantu Trust. It is put out for occupation by a tribal authority and a particular tribe and it then reverts to what we call peasant farming or the type of farming carried out by Black people in South Africa living under tribal conditions. Speaking generally, I think one can say that the viability of the proposition—as a proposition to be continued to be run as the enterprise that it was—has never been taken into account other than to create a value on which to assess compensation to be paid to the previous owners. One has in the past been faced with the situation, and the Select Committee has been faced with the situation, of having to decide whether it is a reasonable purchase of land to be placed in the hands of the South African Bantu Trust for tribal occupation where tribal farming methods will be carried out. Here, Sir, we have an entirely new principle. Here you have in reality the purchase—and it is not a compulsory purchase; it has been offered by the previous owners—of a very large and, I would imagine, a very expensive agricultural industrial undertaking which the newspapers say is valued at something like R8 million, which is the amount reportedly paid for it. Sir, what was the function of the Select Committee in these circumstances? As I see it, the function of the Select Committee is, first of all, to investigate this case with some care: to investigate first of all whether it is a viable undertaking, and I would imagine that that involves a viable undertaking in relation to the price that has been paid for it, particularly when you are dealing with taxpayers’ money of that order—almost R10 million. Secondly, Sir, I would imagine that there ought to be a close investigation by the Select Committee of its profitability; as to whether it is an undertaking that is worth while buying at a price which is such that it can continue to make profits in the future, and that involves not a cursory glance such as, with respect, the hon. the Minister has given us this afternoon—he has told us much the same as what was placed before the Select Committee—but I would think, Sir, that is requires the most comprehensive survey in the nature of a feasibility study by persons qualified and experienced to do that—businessmen, economists, agriculturists and scientists—because we are dealing here with one of the largest irrigated citrus undertakings in the world. I say this for the information of the hon. members who do not know the Zebediela Estates. Sir, none of this information was placed before the Select Committee. We do not know the price that was paid; we do not know the profitability of the undertaking concerned; we do not know what water is available for this enterprise, and our information is that one of the outstanding features of the Zebediela Estates is that a technique has been devised there whereby the trees can be brought to bear and kept going with a minimum of water and that the margin between the trees wilting and their having sufficient water to be able to bear and to be productive, is of the finest order, and if one moves out of that knife-edge one way or the other, one is either going to be short of water or the trees are not going to bear adequately. In other words, Sir, the highest skill in the use of the minimum quantity of water that is available, on my information, not from the Select Committee but from other sources, is required to assure the success of the Zebediela Estates. I may say, Sir, that I have seen them, but that was some years ago, and one cannot speak here from one’s own experience. Sir, the approach of the department in the purchase of an enterprise of this kind, in my view, should be exactly the same as the approach of one business house approaching the directors of this organization if they were to consider buying out the shareholding in a company of this magnitude. If the Select Committee of this House is to perform any function at all in a transaction of this kind, I believe it should be placed in possession of the facts so that it can make a similar inquiry to decide whether or not it should recommend to this House the purchase of an enterprise of this kind for the Bantu Trust and to be run by the Bantu Investment Corporation. I should like to say immediately, Sir, so that there can be no misunderstanding as to the attitude of this side of the House, that we would be quite happy to spend not R8 million but R28 million on the development of enterprises in the Bantu areas. I want to emphasize that. It is not a question of spending R8 million as a sum of money for the development of the Bantu areas; we would be perfectly happy, I say again, to spend R28 million on the development of the Bantu areas provided that the expenditure of that money meant the development of new industries in areas where industries do not exist and provided it meant the development of additional jobs which do not exist at the present time. Neither of those criteria are being fulfilled in this instance, as I shall show in a moment.

Now, I have dealt with the total absence of information before the Select Committee to enable the members of that Select Committee to judge whether this is a reasonable purchase of a large industrial enterprise, because in essence, what is it? In essence it is not the creation of something new. It is not the spending of a large sum of money to create jobs and enterprise where they did not exist before. It is merely a change of ownership. It is merely paying out White shareholders and substituting in their place other White shareholders, namely the shareholding of the Bantu Investment Corporation. That is all that this transaction is in essence. Now, as I have said, in my view the information is not available to us for us to be able to assess whether this is a good buy or not.

Then there is a further factor which I believe should be taken into account. I would imagine that successfully to run an enterprise of this kind, one needs not only highly efficient field staff—and the hon. the Minister has said that the existing field staff, as well as the managing director, would remain there for a period of years under the auspices of the BIC in order to keep this going—but I believe that one needs a board of directors with experience in the handling of finances, particularly in this type of specialist field.

The BIC will have to form a company.

My friend says the BIC will have to form a company. I have no doubt about that, but no evidence was placed before us that the BIC is equipped to handle technically an enterprise of this kind. There was no evidence at all to that effect, and the only experience I have of this type of enterprise being taken over is the Tugela Estates near Weenen. That was in the nature of a showpiece. If my memory serves me correctly, it was bought for £250 000 at the time. It was a large irrigated farming enterprise. I and some of my colleagues went to see that place some years ago. There is virtually nothing left of the farming enterprise which was bought. The irrigation furrows are all clogged up. Virtually nothing is being grown there. One sees a few elderly women hoeing potato patches on what was once highly productive irrigation fields. It is to avoid this sort of thing that one wants to be assured, when one sits on a Select Committee—and I think one is entitled to be assured—that those who are taking over the enterprise from highly efficient private management, when they come to manage it on behalf of the State, are equipped to do so. Now, Tugela Estates, in comparison with Zebediela, was a small enterprise and conventional crops were being grown there, but here we have a very large enterprise in a specialized field. I believe that a Select Committee, if it is to be able to perform its duties properly, is entitled to be given a great deal more information. In fact, we have been told almost nothing.

If one looks at the map, one sees that the land which is to be purchased constitutes a tongue into an existing White area. The consolidation plans of this part of the world are not yet complete, although we were told that it was envisaged that this land which was to be purchased would very likely fit in with consolidation proposals for the future, and then we were told that if it did not fit in, the greater part of it could once again be sold off to White enterprise. Is this the way to go about these things?

No!

I would have thought that the way to have done it would have been to plan the consolidation first and then make the necessary purchases afterwards.

There is one final point I should like to make. I want to deal with the question of priorities. I believe that the greatest priority at the present time is not the buying out of large existing enterprises merely to convert them from private ownership to State ownership. I feel that a far greater priority is the bringing of development to those areas which do not have any at the present time. There are enormous tracts of land which we call Reserves. The Reserves have a high population density and yet at the present moment there is no adequate gainful industrial employment. I believe it would be far better to spend available money on the development of industrial and economic enterprises in those areas so that something new can come into being. Development must be brought to an area where there is none at the present time. Urbanized, industrialized jobs must be created where they do not exist at the present time. None of those criteria are present in the proposed purchase of this particular enterprise.

For these reasons this proposed purchase will not be supported by the official Opposition. I should like to summarize the two points of our objections. Firstly, as in the last case, the Select Committee was not given sufficient facts upon which to do its job. We are being asked here today to vote for the purchase, with public funds, of a large enterprise and we are not in a position to say whether that is a desirable purchase or not. Secondly, we believe that the priorities here are wrong. We are wholly in favour of the industrialization, at public expense, of the homeland areas, but we believe that the priorities ought not to favour the acquisition of existing job-giving enterprises. The priorities ought to favour the creation of new job-giving enterprises in those areas which have none at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member repeated once more that there was insufficient data and information before the Select Committee. He said that this was one of the reasons for their failure to support this motion. He intimated what kind of information he had wanted. The kind of information he wants, however, has nothing to do with the matter which was before the Select Committee and which is now being debated in this House. The information he wanted, had regard to the price to be paid for the land, the profitability of the undertaking that was being purchased and certain other managerial matters. But that is not the question before the House. The matter before the House is to declare this area a released area, in other words, an area in which the State President may declare released areas. This is the matter before the House. The other questions asked by the hon. member have nothing to do with the question whether this area should be declared a released area or not. The question about which the hon. member and his party must decide is whether they are in favour of or opposed to this area being declared a released area. The price paid has nothing to do with it. Released areas have been declared in the past, too, and they never asked what price was paid for that land, because at that stage it was not relevant. At the moment land is being purchased in my constituency. Hon. members can discuss that next year when the hon. the Minister’s Vote is debated and at that stage they can charge the Minister with having paid too much or too little or with having made a bad buy.

The hon. member made another statement which I am unable to accept. He said that we were now concerned with an entirely new principle and that an agricultural enterprise which could be described as a business enterprise was being purchased. I want to tell the hon. member that every farming enterprise in South Africa is a business enterprise. This does not make the enterprise being carried on that specific land, any different from any other farming enterprise. There is no factory there; no processing is done. Everything done there, is done on every other farm. Products are cultivated there which are then packed and prepared for the market. Subsequently they are sold to a co-operative. The products are not processed in any way. In other words, this is not an industrial enterprise. It is a business enterprise in the same way as any other farm is a business enterprise. The only difference between that specific enterprise and other places where land is purchased, is that this one belongs to one owner while at other places where similar land is being purchased, the land belongs to more than one owner. This does not mean that the other land which is being purchased and which belongs to more than one owner is not exploited to its optimum extent economically or that the maximum economic potential of that land is not being utilized merely because it belongs to more than one owner. Other land that is purchased and that belongs to a number of individual owners, is exploited economically and to its utmost potential. This also applies to the land at present under discussion.

I want to give hon. members an example. The specific area at present under discussion comprises 15 600 ha. At present land comprising a total surface are of 14 000 ha is being purchased in my constituency. However the land belongs to 47 different owners. Those 14 000 ha of land, in my humble opinion, are also going to cost a few million rand. However, the price of the land is also irrelevant. That land is being utilized to the maximum by the farmers. There is an infrastructure with cooperative facilities, depots etc., at which the products are delivered. The same goes for the area at present under discussion. Those 14 000 ha, seen as a whole, are no different to this land in the sense that there is a different organization and a different type of farming; it is not that the one is a farm while the other is a business. In both cases we have precisely the same phenomenon. The land being purchased in the Delarey district is an agricultural enterprise that is being utilized in the best possible way, and the same goes for the land in the Potgietersrust district. If we are to describe the one as a business, then we must describe the other as a business too. They are precisely the same. In the vicinity of Dendron, the Bantu Trust is purchasing approximately 30 000 ha of land belonging to 48 different owners. Of this land, 2 000 ha is under irrigation. I want to ask hon. members whether the land to which I have just referred, differs from that of the Zebediela Estates merely because it belongs to more than one owner. About the same proportion of the land being purchased at Dendron is under irrigation as in the case of the land we are discussing at present. The only difference is that there are more owners. The hon. member is making a mistake by regarding this instance in an entirely different light. For that reason I do not want to agree with him in that regard. In my opinion his argument is an incorrect one.

The hon. member also said that the priorities are wrong. He said that he was prepared to vote R28 million if a new undertaking were to be tackled. He said the only change that was taking place was the change in ownership, but that is an essential, important and major difference. The fact is that the profits of the enterprise at present accrue to the existing owners, who are Whites living in the White areas. If the ownership changes, the profits accrue to the BIC, which acts on behalf of the homeland. Then those profits remain within the homeland.

What is the profit?

No, wait. This is a very major difference. The hon. member states that he is prepared to vote R28 million for it. He does not need to do so. This enterprise will provide the R28 million within a short time. Because the money now remains within the homeland, the profits that accrue may be used to develop the homeland. Now another reason why the Opposition acted so emotionally with regard to the first report, has become clear to me. They had to present themselves here as the great champions of the Bantu peoples because they know that they are too miserly to give up this piece of land to a homeland.

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

The hon. member can put his question in a moment.

What are the profits? [Interjections.]

I heard what the question was.

What did he ask?

He asked what the profits were. I want to tell the hon. member that that is irrelevant here. What is relevant now, is whether or not this area should be declared a released area. The hon. member is being presumptuous to ask what the profits are. He now wants to create a precedent by throwing open the books of a business to the public of South Africa and investigating its profits. There are hundreds of people whose land has to be bought. Is it fair to expect that if I sell my land to the State instead of to anyone else, I should let the world know what my profits are? As far as I am concerned, this is a matter between the people who are selling their land, and the State. If they want to open their books of the past few years to the public of South Africa, they can do so. The Minister has been given these books to inspect and he can always appoint people to go through the books in order to determine whether the concern has been profitable and whether it is a good purchase for the State. But I regard it as entirely unnecessary for the domestic affairs of a company doing business with the State to be made public. I think that that is a poor business principle, but that is what these hon. members want to do now. If they want that information, I want to suggest that they go to the company and get it there.

I say that the hon. members are concealing something, and that is that they do not want to give up this land. I think that we should ascertain whether that party has yet reached unanimity in regard to the purchase of land. They have said that according to them it is unnecessary that more land be purchased for the homelands. They have said, on occasion, that the 1936 Act only provides for a maximum that has to be bought. Two years ago, when the Ciskei was being consolidated, the hon. member who represents the Transkeian areas said that he thought that in terms of their policy it was unnecessary to purchase more land. The hon. member for King William’s Town, because his constituency was involved in the purchase of land, said: “It is the maximum that is provided for in the Act; it is therefore unnecessary to purchase that land.” They said at the time that even less should be bought. They said that more land could in fact be bought if that was what was wanted, but that according to their policy it was unnecessary. They went further and said that we should rather purchase land in the urban areas and give the people the right of property ownership there, and that it was entirely unnecessary to consolidate the homelands. During the same period the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was writing articles for the Sunday Times. In one of those articles he said the following—

This is important. He spoke about the consolidation of the homelands. He said that he was in favour of the homelands being consolidated. Other hon. members were not in favour of it. I want to ask them whether they have settled this matter within their own ranks. What do they stand for? Today they come along and vote against it. That is why I want to ask the hon. members what their standpoint is. Would they be so kind as to tell the world, the voters of South Africa and, in addition, those people whose cause they were espousing so emotionally a short time ago, what their standpoint is so that we and all the peoples of South Africa may know where they stand? The hon. member said that in the past, land was purchased for pastoral farming only. But surely that is not true. Through the years agricultural land has been purchased in the Western Transvaal that has been maintained in production by the S.A. Bantu Trust. In other areas, irrigable land has been purchased. Because there is an organization like the Bantu Investment Corporation today, the machinery to maintain that highly productive land in production, exists. The hon. member now says that he has no proof that the Bantu Investment Corporation and the S.A. Bantu Trust will be able to do this. What, now, is the most important consideration in making a success of such an enterprise? In any enterprise, whether it is a farming or a business enterprise, the management is what is most important. It is not the board of directors who are going to farm on that land. The board of directors of this specific company did not farm there but appointed a management to do so. The board of directors, of course, also has a role to play in this regard. The management is being taken over as it stands by the Bantu Investment Corporation. I now want to ask the hon. member what better proof the hon. the Deputy Minister could furnish him with today than to say that the management which is there now and which is making a success of it, will remain there as it stands? That is the most important factor.

Five years.

When one takes over an enterprise and one can retain its management for five years, one has a five-year opportunity to make adjustments and, perhaps, to retain those same people for a further period. That is the most important factor, but now the hon. member states that he has misgivings. I regard it as absolutely childish to come along with such an argument. This is the best guarantee one can have.

I believe, therefore, that hon. members opposite are against this because, in the first place, at heart they do not want to see further development taking place in the homelands. Their policy recognizes and makes provision for the homelands, but they do not want to see them develop. Every attempt on the part of the Government to do this, is opposed by them. What is more, they do not want to acknowledge the development that has in fact taken place there. They act as if it has not taken place and if they could reason it away, they would do so with the greatest pleasure because they do not want to have it. They do not want to see the homelands becoming political entities. They have other ideas for South Africa. They only include this to catch the voters, or something of that nature, but in reality they do not want them to be developed. The hon. member also said that he would vote in favour of more money if it was going to be a new enterprise, because this was supposedly only a take-over. I have already indicated to him that this is a very important change that is taking place. What is more, this specific estate that is now being purchased does not consist of land belonging to Olifants River riparian owners. It has its own water resources and these resources are being fully exploited. In other words, any potential this estate still has—there is in fact still potential for further developments—cannot be undertaken with the available water. They would have to obtain water from another source for this purpose. However they are not owners of riparian land on the Olifants River, which for the most part runs through the homeland. The homeland is in fact the riparian owner and can therefore obtain water. If this enterprise were to obtain water from there, then any other farmer or entrepreneur who was not a riparian owner could also lay claim to the water. I want to state this very clearly, particularly for the edification of the hon. member for Eden-vale, because he may perhaps state possibilities again. A riparian owner differs from a man who is not a riparian owner. If a man who is not a riparian owner gets water, everyone in that area who is not a riparian owner, is entitled to it too. That is why the position of the S.A. Bantu Trust differs from that of the existing owners. It is a riparian owner and it is already going to build a dam at the capital city of Lebowa, which is situated 12 miles from this estate, to provide that capital city with water. Now the Bantu Trust is in the favourable position that fresh water for this estate can be provided from that same dam. In other words, there is a possibility of expansion and of the creation of new employment opportunities. That is why, if the hon. member is serious and if he regards the growth of the homelands as a serious matter and wants to promote it, he and his party should not take up the standpoint they have taken up here today and try to block this motion. I therefore want to conclude by saying that this side of the House supports the Minister. We concur with this report, and we are going to put everything into the struggle to make this recommendation a reality. This side of the House is in earnest about developing the homelands. These are already becoming the fatherlands of those people, and we do not regard them merely as a political football for political gain. We regard this as a matter as being of the greatest concern for the future of everyone in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lichtenburg has said that there are two reasons why we are opposing this resolution. I really cannot understand how an hon. member whose intellect I have grown to respect over the years that I have worked with him in this House and outside, can now spoil my whole impression of that intellect by making two such stupid statements. Either he has suddenly taken leave of his senses, or else he has made himself guilty of playing politics. Surely the hon. member listened to my friend from Umhlatuzana. Surely he has listened to debates and statements that have been made from this side of the House over the last few years regarding (a) the development of the Bantu areas and (b) the question of the acquisition of land for the further development of the Bantu people themselves. Surely he will know that that hon. Minister is now implementing policies we have pleaded for over the last 15 years. We have pleaded for the allowing of White capital and skills into the Black areas for their development. How we have pleaded with him to allow the money and the skills in to develop the Bantu areas! And now my friend from Lichtenburg says that we are opposing this resolution because we do not want any development of the Bantu areas. Sir, really, he disappoints me on that score.

Secondly, he knows our standpoint on the acquisition of land. It has been made clear so often. Of course, we want to see land acquired for these people. But, Sir, what are we being asked to do this afternoon? In the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister we are not being asked to acquire land; we are being asked to acquire a business enterprise.

What is wrong with that?

I think it was the hon. member for Koedoespoort who asked what is wrong with that. I will come in a moment to the question of the principle of the acquisition of such a business enterprise. However, let us first deal with this question of the acquisition of land for the moment. I have here the memorandum which was submitted to members of the select committee for their consideration before the meeting of the committee. Item 1 reads—

Sir, that I can accept, but the acquisition of land we are being asked this afternoon to approve, is not for Bantu settlement, and I do not believe that it is generally for the carrying out of the provisions of the Act. We are being asked to approve the acquisition of an asset which comprises a certain amount of land, a certain number of trees and certain other fixed property in the form of buildings and other developments, as well as goodwill, as it would appear. What is going to happen to this? The hon. the Deputy Minister has told us that he does not know what is going to happen to it because he does not know which Bantu authority is going to acquire this asset in time to come. He does not know where this land will go, whether it will be Lebowa or a new authority to be established for the North Ndebele people. Nobody knows. I accept the fact that we do not know. However, we speak about “generally for the carrying out of the provisions of the Act”. I want to put this to the hon. the Minister as a question and I hope that he will be able to answer it because it is important that the House should know the answer to this question before we are asked to vote on this motion this afternoon. It may perhaps require that we should adjourn this debate until we can get an answer to this question. I see that the hon. the Minister is laughing. He does not even know what the question is but he is laughing already! [Interjections.] That is the sort of intellect that we expect from that hon. Minister. That is what we have come to expect from him. [Interjections.]

He will not have the answer anyway.

The hon. member for Von Brandis says that he will probably not know the answer anyway. Therefore, I shall not talk to him but to his deputy who might know the answer. The question is this. Is the S.A. Bantu Trust empowered to expend funds on the acquisition of assets which will vest in the Bantu Investment Corporation or a company but not in a Bantu or a Bantu authority? I know that there is a provision in the Act which provides that the Trust may acquire shares in an organization for the advancement of the Bantu people, but does that not refer to such establishments as the Bantu Investment Corporation itself? This is not going to fall under the BIC. In the words of the hon. the Minister and, I think, the hon. member for Lichtenburg—and certainly from the evidence that we heard on the Select Committee—in this case a company is to be established. I want to ask this question. Is it correct that the funds of the S.A. Bantu Trust should be expended in this way in acquiring an asset which will vest in a company and not in a Bantu or a Bantu authority? I ask this in all seriousness. Apart from anything else, let us have an unequivocal answer to this question and then we can go further with the debate.

I want to come back now to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. He has argued that the information regarding price and profitability is not the question before the House. Perhaps technically he is quite right. That is not the question before the House. The question before the House is whether this resolution should in fact be approved. However, in order to decide whether we shall approve this resolution we must know all the facts. He went further and asked whether we were in favour of the proclamation as a released area of this piece of land or not. He said that price was not our affair. How dare the hon. member show this sort of arrogance in the House! This is typical of the arrogance that we find when we deal with hon. members on that side of the House. Because they have decided, it does not matter what anybody else may think.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Did the hon. member not hear me tell him that there would be another occasion on which he could discuss the price?

Yes, Sir, the hon. member did say so but by then the whole thing will be over.

I said so.

Yes, he did say so but by then the whole matter will be over. We are being asked to decide now and we have to decide now on the facts at our disposal. Surely, if we are being asked, in the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister, to decide whether or not Trust funds should be expended on the acquisition of an asset, we must know whether that asset is worth the amount that is being expended? It is all very well trying to hide behind the request of the persons concerned that their private business should not be bandied around. I want to say here and now that I agree that it is not advisable that the private affairs of concerns such as this should be bandied about in public as is going to have to happen in this House this afternoon. I want once again to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister and to the hon. member for Lichtenburg who is the chairman of the Bantu Affairs Select Committee that the time and place when this information should have been made available to us was when this matter was before the Select Committee where the matter would have been kept in committee. I want to register my protest this afternoon at the fact that we were not given any information in the Select Committee, and even when we requested it, it was denied to us. Sir, a question was put to the hon. the Minister by my friend, the hon. member for Walmer, and the hon. the Minister, in reply to that question, gave as much information as we got in the Select Committee. His reply was that the amount involved would be in the neighbourhood of R8 million. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the valuation had been worked out on some formula; unfortunately he spoke too fast for me to make notes of all the facts that he gave the House, but on a valuation of R10 per tree, it worked out at R5 million, plus so many hectares at so much per hectare, giving a total of approximately R9 million, plus fixed improvements of approximately R2 million. Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister where he got those figures from. I did not make a note of his actual words, but he gave me the impression that he had called in certain experts who had given their opinion. Were those amounts arrived at as a result of actual sworn appraisements, or are they merely estimates? I wonder if the hon. the Minister would reply? Would he indicate whether they were sworn appraisements? He refuses to tell us. Did he call in the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure?

Yes.

Thank you very much. Did they give a valuation?

Yes.

Would the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us what that valuation was?

I am not going to tell you that.

He is not going to tell us. Surely, Sir, this is contempt of Parliament. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker; this is surely contempt of Parliament. Parliament is being asked to decide a matter here, and the hon. the Deputy Minister says he is not going to give Parliament this information. I am not asking for that information for my own benefit; I am doing my duty as a member of Parliament, as every one of those noisy hon. members opposite should be doing as well.

You will get it next year and then you can talk.

Sir, listen to the arrogance of the hon. the Deputy Minister; he says that I can get it next year when it will be too late. Why, if he will give it to us next year, is he not prepared to give it to us now? What has he got to hide? Has he got to hide either the fact that this is not valued at the amount that they are going to pay, or has he got to hide the fact that it is not a profitable concern? What has he got to hide?

Nothing. You are talking too much. Sit down.

No, I am not talking too much at all. Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you; you will tell me when I talk too much and then I will sit down. The trouble with the hon. the Deputy Minister is that he, is not talking enough; he is not telling us enough of what is going on. I believe that if we are to do our duty as members of this House here this afternoon, we must know what is going on. Is this in fact a viable proposition? Are we in fact not being asked to spend Government money unwisely?

Taxpayers’ money.

Yes, taxpayers’ money, money which is being allocated by this House for the benefit of the Black people of this country; and then we do not even know if they are wasting the money or if they are spending it wisely.

We can buy all the land that we need in the country without coming to Parliament in connection with the price we pay.

Why then does the hon. the Deputy Minister come to Parliament?

Because we are in a hurry.

Why are we in a hurry?

Because it is cheap.

How do we know that it is cheap? I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister why he is in a hurry; he is in a hurry now because the sellers want to sell. Sir, we know that in business the most vulnerable buyer of all is the one who swallows the story from the seller that it is in his best interests to buy quickly.

He could be sold a pup.

As my hon. friend says, he could be sold a pup and we would never know until it was too late, until next year, when he will give us the answers to the questions that we are now asking. Sir, what is the hurry? The hon. the Deputy Minister started by telling us that he has been negotiating this matter for four years.

He is a poor negotiator.

Now suddenly he comes here in a hurry. Sir, in the Select Committee we were told that this matter was urgent because the owners were anxious to sell, and the hon. the Deputy Minister falls for this story. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister refuses to give me answers to the direct questions which I have asked him regarding the valuation and regarding the price he is going to pay and everything else. But I want to tell him, in regard to the amount he is paying, that according to a reply of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration to a question which was asked on 11 October—

What are these “aanverwante uitgawes”?

He gave it to you. You did not listen.

What information did the hon. the Minister give us? [Interjections.] It is no good the Minister getting all excited about this. How much is being paid in commission?

Nothing, not a quarter of a cent.

I am very glad to hear that. Nothing is being paid in commission on the sale. How much of this approximately R8 million is being paid for valuation charges?

Nothing.

Nothing? It is only being done by the Department of Agricultural Credit? Thank you. I am very glad to receive those assurances. Now, why were we not able to get this information on the Select Committee?

Because you got it for nothing.

Because I got it for nothing? But I get nothing for nothing from the hon. the Minister. Now I want to go further with this whole question. If this is to be a business proposition, then it must in fact be a viable business proposition. Now there is no need for the Minister to divulge any of these figures which are so highly secret, but can he give us some indication of the percentage profitability of this business? Is he going to realize 10% on his investment?

Round about 10%.

He means 12%.

I am in deadly earnest about this. The hon. the Minister says he is going to realize round about 10%. Will he realize 20 %?

Not as high as that.

I am serious. I am in deadly earnest when I ask these questions, because this is a serious matter. Obviously he is going to realize approximately 10% on his investment, but it is not going to be as high as 20%. Now, if we are to approve this resolution this afternoon we are going to set a very dangerous precedent. We are being asked to accept a completely new principle. As the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has said, we are being asked to purchase a going concern, not with the object of establishing more work opportunities for the Bantu, not with the purpose of settling Bantu people who at the moment need resettlement, not for purposes of consolidating the Bantu homelands, but simply for the sake of obtaining a going concern, which is a profitable concern, which will bring profit to the Bantu areas so that they can contribute over the next few years and raise a certain amount of money for development. But now the principle is this.

May I put a question?

Sit down.

You are afraid.

I am never afraid of that Minister or any other hon. member opposite, and the Minister knows it. [Interjections.] Sir, the question is this. If the Trust is able to purchase any enterprise, whether it is within the Bantu areas or not, which is going to show a net return in the region of 10%, then this Trust must buy it. That is the principle we are being asked to establish here this afternoon, that because here is a good investment—and as a businessman I question that—which will show a return of approximately 10% per annum, then what is to stop him at any time from buying any enterprise in Cape Town or any enterprise in Durban or Johannesburg or anywhere else for the benefit of the Bantu people, merely because the investment of a certain amount of money will bring a return of something in the neighbourhood of 10%? [Interjections.] That is what he said. But I want to query this and I want to say now that I have a little more information on this question, and now that the Minister tells me that the profit based on investment, the return on the investment in this case, is only going to be in the region of 10%, I am even more opposed to it than I was before. If he had been able to show that it could produce a profit of between 20% and 25%, then I could have agreed with it.

We are not buying your Hammarsdale store.

Of course, that hon. Deputy Minister will always think of bringing in my own personal affairs. I am prepared to declare my interest, but is he prepared to declare his interest, and are other hon. members on that side prepared to declare their interest as well?

Yes.

Will the Deputy Minister declare his interest? [Interjections.]

Order! That is not relevant now.

With respect, Sir, as a reply to the comment of the hon. the Deputy Minister, I think it is pertinent, but I shall abide by your ruling. The hon. the Deputy Minister raises the question of my store at Hammarsdale. If he could acquire my store at Hammarsdale, which would show the Bantu Trust a return of 20%, would he buy it?

No.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says no. If he will not buy mine when it is going to show the Bantu Trust a return of 20%, why can he come and ask this House today to buy Zebediela which is only going to show a return of 10%?. He is not giving any more employment to Black people; he is not settling more people; he is not consolidating the area; in fact, the area sticks out like a sore thumb.

Who said we are not going to consolidate?

What is being consolidated? Which homeland is being consolidated? He does not even tell us that he is consolidating, let alone which homeland he is consolidating. Where is he consolidating? There is only a vague reference to “the north and the east of that area”. It has been alleged that this property could be valued at R15 million. The hon. the Deputy Minister tells us he is going to pay something like R8 million. If he could produce to this House proof that it is in fact worth R15 million, that it is a good business venture, that he is going to have a net return in the region of 20% to 25% and that it is to the benefit of the Black people, then we could reconsider our attitude. Unfortunately he has not been able to tell us that at all. Because of all those factors I do not find myself able to support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, what we have witnessed here today on the part of the Opposition is nothing but pure wilfulness. I think the hon. member’s speech is one of the most boring speeches we have had to listen to in this House for many years.

It was outstanding!

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said here this afternoon that he had had a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Lichtenburg, but that his respect for the hon. member and his ability had begun gradually to dwindle. There the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has a great advantage over the hon. member for Lichtenburg because our view of the abilities of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg could not be any lower than it is already. Every time the hon. member’s argument is at its worst, he calls out very emotionally “Now, Sir …” and it is not long before he is busy with something new. Each of his arguments was weaker than the last. What did the hon. member really tell us this afternoon? I am unable to point to one constructive argument which he has contributed to the debate. He started off by saying that the hon. the Deputy Minister had stated that the Zebediela Estate was being purchased for its industrial value. He said that it was being purchased because it was a going concern and not because of its agricultural value. That, however, is entirely untrue. The purchase has a twofold purpose. In the first place it creates viability for a homeland which is going to acquire that estate and that viability is of the highest quality. This estate lies within my constituency. I have been there a few times every year; I know that area and its people very well and I know about everything that is going on there. I can therefore speak from personal experience. The estate as it is at present comprises about half of the land in respect of which it is now being requested that it be purchased as a released area. The other half is a piece of land situated there with a fine broad ravine, with a great deal of water and equipped as a private game reserve. There is also a very large cattle farm. Both the cattle farm and the game reserve could be developed into something outstanding by any homeland that could get its hands on it. The estate itself is already a tourist attraction and that game reserve could be further developed as a tourist attraction. The purchase of the Zebediela Estates is to the detriment of absolutely no one. It can only be to someone’s benefit. The people who are going to benefit from this are the people of the homeland which is to acquire that estate. The only people whose interests could possibly be prejudiced by the purchase are the existing owners because they are disposing of the estate at a very low price. I have heard during the past few years that the present owners actually wanted far more for the estate than they are now getting. After negotiating with the Government, they went so far as to accept a smaller offer which was to their detriment. This is a very advantageous purchase that has been entered into. It is a growing concern and a growth point and the hon. member for Lichtenburg was quite correct in saying that it is a growth point which could develop in such a way that the profits derived from it could be utilized for the further development of the homeland. I want to add at once that the whole area being declared a released area borders on existing homeland territory. The homeland territory, again, borders on the Olifants River. Between the Zebediela Estate and the Olifants River there are extensive areas which are homeland territory and which could still be planted with citrus trees or where farming of any kind can be carried on. The profits of this estate could assist in developing the other territory of the homeland with water from the Olifants River. The Olifants River is a perennial river running through the homeland. The Olifants River is only 18 miles from this estate. The irrigation that can be provided there can only be of the greatest benefit to that homeland. At the moment there is sufficient water to irrigate the existing estate. There are three dams on the estate, of which one is quite a large dam, namely the Compies Dam. This dam is situated in the Compies River. This dam has a very large cement wall and was an expensive dam to construct. This is one of the factors causing the valuation of the estate to be so high. The three dams have supplied water to the estate up to now but in the interim the present owners have, in addition, drilled a number of boreholes on the estate to make further provision for water. They wanted to ensure in this way that they would have additional supplies of water in the future. They struck a great deal of water. Two or three years ago, when the Compies Dam and the river dried up, these people relied exclusively on the boreholes. The boreholes kept the orange trees going throughout the entire period. The boreholes are only a reserve for when the dams dry up. They used them to the great benefit of the farm. There are now three sources from which water can be drawn. There are the dams, the boreholes and the Olifants River, all of which can supply water to the estate. In other words, the future of the estate is assured. These people are now concerned about what will happen to the estate if it is given to a homeland. The hon. the Deputy Minister staled very clearly that this concern is to be carried on by the Bantu Investment Corporation or some other company. I again want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Lichtenburg said by saying that it is not the directors who keep a concern going, but the management of the concern. Any concern whose management is faulty would go to rack and ruin. If they were to go into the economic operational aspect of this whole matter a little more deeply, they would be able to see very clearly that if the management had been making mistakes in the past, this estate would not have developed into a flourishing concern. In the same way any management could be appointed to that concern in the future. It would not be the directors, the BIC, the department or the homeland government which would operate that concern, but, in point of fact, the management of that concern.

This concern creates a viability for the homelands. If the United Party wanted to be consistent, they should have encouraged the purchase of this concern for the homelands, and for two reasons. The first is that it creates a viability for that homeland. The second is that that purchase also gives geographic content to their federation idea. If that area were to be purchased for the homeland, their idea of the viable homeland could be further developed. If I had been them, I should actually have greatly welcomed these purchases, and not condemned them.

Another point made by the hon. members is that they did not acquire sufficient information in the Select Committee. Surely that is not true. They asked questions for over half an hour in that Select Committee. The chairman gave them the opportunity to ask more questions and they stated that they had no further questions to ask. There were four officials who were prepared to provide them with the facts but they said they had no further questions to ask. How dare they, then, come here this afternoon and say that they were unable to get the facts at the Select Committee meeting? Surely that is totally untrue. Let us take the other argument they raised, a little further, namely that they did not inspect the balance sheet of that enterprise. As far as that is concerned, I want to let the argument advanced by the hon. the Deputy Minister suffice. If, as in this case, negotiations had been carried on for four years, how were the sellers to know that the Government would eventually agree to purchase the land? Surely, before it was finally purchased and they were assured of the fact, they would not be prepared to publish their balance sheets in the Press for everyone to see. No business would want to do so. Therefore the purchasers would not want to do so either. I do not hold it against the Zebediela Estates and the Schlesinger organization that they refused to have these balance sheets published. I should not have done so myself if I had been them. This enterprise, Zebediela Estates, has been in existence for more than 40 years. If the estate had not been proved to be profitable in the course of those 40 years, these people would surely have got rid of it a long time ago. They would surely not have kept it going if that had been the case. Nor would they have been continually engaged in making extensions there. Since I have known this place, so many extensions have been made that its value has increased considerably. No one in his right mind would make those extensions if he had had any misgivings about such an enterprise. Negotiations were conducted for years before this enterprise was purchased. The fact that they have now been finalized and that they have had to accept substantially less, almost 50% less, of the price they originally asked, shows that this is an extremely advantageous transaction being concluded on behalf of a people that can utilize that concern to provide for its future.

In conclusion, I also want to mention, for the information of those who are unaware of this, that the Zebediela Estate lies on the boundary of the capital city of the north Sothos, Lebowa-Gomo. It is situated 12 miles from the Zebediela Estate. This capital city has made such progress that a substantial number of people are able to to live there. Eventually the population of Lebowa-Gomo will be between ½ million and ¾ million people. This is a vast city in the north at the gates of this Zebediela Estate, which need not remain an estate only but can also develop further through industries that can be established there. The railway line is already there and one of the largest mission hospitals in the homelands, namely Groothoek mission hospital is situated close to this estate. This whole complex gives us a picture of viability for a homeland which could come into being there in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South raised in the course of this debate something which verged on a point of order, namely whether it was competent for us to consider a recommendation of the purchase of land which in this particular instance he said was not so much a purchase of land, but an investment in an industry. I must assume that in the absence of a negative ruling it is competent for this House to consider this and that the Bantu Trust Act can be applied for this particular purpose recommended, which includes not only the purchase of land but the industrial agricultural enterprise which is part and parcel of that land. I am assuming that this is correct and that we are not departing from the basic principle of the original Act although it is quite clear that this piece of land is more developed than many other pieces of land which have been purchased from parts of the released areas in the past.

I want to make it clear that we in these benches support this recommendation. We do not support, and we reserve the right to criticize this Government about, the details of its negotiations which I assume have not yet been completed. We are not voting for a sum of money, and we will criticize any expenditure which we feel is extravagant as well as any terms or conditions which may subsequently be imposed as a result of the release of this piece of land and its possible acquisition by the Bantu Trust. I assume that there could even be circumstances in which the negotiations might break down and that in spite of this being a released area this land would not be acquired by the Bantu Trust. Therefore, while on the one hand agreeing in principle to the release of this land so that one can negotiate for its final purchase, we reserve our right to criticize any aspect of the details of any negotiations or the possible subsequent purchase which can take place on behalf of the Bantu Trust.

Either that is double Dutch or it is double English; I am not quite sure which.

When his hon. gentleman has been here long enough perhaps he will understand that, in fact, the question before us does not relate to money but to the release of land. It is obvious that the Government intends purchasing it and we recognize this, but we are not discussing here the specifics of the cost or of the profitability. We will criticize this hon. Deputy Minister if, in due course, he asks for a sum of money which is required for this land and we believe it is either too high or that he wants to buy an enterprise which is not available enterprise in money terms. Quite dearly the vote is to release certain land. The recommendation is that the State President be given the authority to declare certain land a released area. The intention is there, but the details of the transactions are not before this House other than in broad general terms. We will not necessarily agree with the details when they are presented to this House.

Let us look at this in broader outline. First of all, legislators in this House have a commitment to purchase additional land. It is all very well for hon. members on my right-hand side to act as they do. I realize that they have raised points of doubt, but these points of doubt seem to reinforce a point of principle which was the watershed between themselves and ourselves in 1959. [Interjections.] In spite of all the brave words there is a reticence to purchase additional land if that land is going to be used for the Bantu homelands. We are not unmindful of what happened in the Eshowe constituency at the time of the last election when the issue of the purchase and consolidation of land became a political factor. I do not want to belabour these points, but I believe the points that have been raised will have to be considered, and the hon. the Minister will have to consider them at the time when the negotiations take place and the purchase is made. However, the fact is that we still are required to purchase over 1 200 000 ha of land in terms of the 1936 settlement. Any proposal which is not economically disastrous, to purchase that additional land, we believe should be supported as an act of good faith on the part of the White people of South Africa. The position with regard to this particular purchase is that there is no coercion. There is no pressure being applied on the part of the Government to an unwilling seller. In this instance the land is being made available. An offer has been made, which can be accepted or rejected. Thirdly, this particular instance does not involve the displacement, removal or shifting of vast numbers of people from one place to the other. Indeed, there are already a significant number of Africans working in this area. They can settle in this area, and it will not involve the removal of people from one place to another.

Nobody has suggested that it would.

I say that these are the advantages. It is an advantage that people will not be removed. Therefore, when you can acquire additional land which does not involve vast removals, it is a plus factor. I think one should take these plus factors into account.

The point that has been made is that this is more valuable land than is usual. It is said that normally it is undeveloped land which is purchased. This is correct, but only partially correct. I think hon. members are aware that from time to time valuable farms are purchased. It is true that very often undeveloped land is purchased, but time and time again, valuable White-owned farmland has been purchased by the Bantu Trust and added to the total land available to the Africans. Here is a situation where a piece of land, like many other pieces of land in the past, has been developed. This one, however, is developed more intensively, for a more specialized section of the agricultural industry. It has become a significant factor in the citrus industry. It could also become a significant growth point in a particular African homeland. Therefore, there is no difference in principle. But there is no doubt that this piece of land is a very special one in relation to the South African economy and the economy of that area. However, we see no reason why land which has already been developed or which is partially developed, should not be included in land which is made part of released areas. Indeed, if one can inject a going concern, a concern in which there is already some know-how, in which there is already the infrastructure for development, and where there is already capital, not only in the form of money, but also in the form of buildings, irrigation, plantations, marketing, packaging and goodwill into the homelands, so much the better. So, Mr. Speaker, we believe that in principle the Government should proclaim this as a released area. This House should endorse the resolution. We believe that the Minister should try to get this land at the best price, quite naturally, and that he should take all the problems of the continued development of this particular industry into consideration.

We believe that the Bantu homelands do require areas in which there can be some diversification of their economy. We think that one of the problems of the homelands is the lack of economic diversification. At present in the homelands one has an economy based on a rural peasantry. Where there is an opportunity to bring into the homelands a new source of diversification, which could enable one to train and encourage the homeland Africans in a specialized area of agriculture, and in addition give them the opportunity of acquiring skills in such fields as marketing, business administration and management, we believe it should be utilized. We believe that while there are risks involved—and let us agree that there are risks involved—here is a piece of very valuable land which is very largely developed and which could act as a growthpoint for a new developing industry in the homeland areas. We believe that it should be supported in principle. However, I want to reiterate that we will come back to the hon. the Minister and we will criticize him and even attack him, if necessary, if at any stage, when the actual purchase of this property is before this House, he does not give us satisfactory replies in relation to the purchase price, and details of the negotiations and the on-going management of this particular project. Because this recommendation is not one of the mere handing over of a business but that certain land be declared a released area, we on this side of the House will support it with the reservation, as I have said, that we will continue to attack this Government if in any way it pays money which is excessive, if it does not ensure that this enterprise continues as an on-going enterprise, and if it does not see that the Blacks themselves have a greater say in the management of this particular project.

Mr. Speaker, with the speech by the hon. member for Sea Point we have now, fortunately, had a more constructive contribution than we had earlier this afternoon. Although it is a little ironical, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Sea Point—after a very negative performance last night—on what, to my mind, is at present a positive attitude. I want to thank him and I want to give him the assurance that we acknowledge that he can subsequently exercise his right to criticize if he objects to the price. The position here is simply that we are only asking for the approval of a released area. When this is done the transaction can be finalized. The fact remains that we have an offer here and we must accept it. It fits in with the rounding-off of the homelands and it also has a number of additional benefits which I do not want to dwell on now. Mention has been made of the railway line there, the development of Lebowa-Gomo, and so on. There are major advantages in this for us. If we were to refuse this offer and these people were then to state in public that they had offered certain land to the Trust and that we did not want to accept it, then we would have exposed ourselves to violent criticism. I want to say, too, that it does not matter whether one buys a large or a small farming enterprise. The basic principle is the same. One is buying a farming enterprise, whether large or small, in the interests of the Black people of this country.

Regarless of price.

Each piece of land is purchased after we have procured valuations by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. I have details at my disposal with which I have already furnished hon. members. I have provided these details because we wanted to dispose of this matter quickly, if possible. Otherwise we should have had the criticism which I mentioned at the start, namely that we had an offer and we ignored it. If we were to fail to purchase it now, we should probably have to purchase it for a much higher price at a later stage. Here we are acting in the interests of the taxpayer, too.

I should like to refer very briefly to what was said by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He said that they were against this because they had insufficient details. I am very sorry, but they will not be able to get more details. We could just as well have let this matter stand over until next year and then resubmitted it with our consolidation proposals. Then we should not have provided any details about any place, because in the normal course we do not do so. What difference does it make if one purchases a major undertaking or a minor one? Why should one provide all the details in the case of a major undertaking? I provided the information at the outset, and it was provided in the Select Committee, with the sole purpose of letting people know that here we were dealing with a special offer which we had to consider. Then, Sir, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that this was not a new development; that is correct. We should like to have spent money on new development, but the department and I are convinced that this existing concern will be of great benefit and can give rise to additional development, and therefore it is a proposition that must be considered. In fact we are buying existing developments everywhere. If we were only to buy undeveloped land for the Black people, then that would amount to us offering them what was left, and we must ensure that these people receive honest treatment as far as the purchase of land is concerned. We cannot look for and purchase pieces of land simply because they are undeveloped. In most cases it will probably be poor land.

Sir, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South wanted to know whether we were legally empowered to handle this transaction in this way. As with the hon. member for Sea Point, I can give him the assurance that there is no legal provision preventing us from handling the transaction in this way. The Trust purchases the Estate, the BIC manages it through a company and there is nothing to prevent this. The idea is to get the Black people involved in the operation of such an enterprise as soon as possible. I want to say very clearly, so that everyone can understand it, that the land is not yet purchased. We have a basic agreement with these people but it is subject to the approval of this Parliament. It has been said here by certain hon. members that we have come to an agreement with the people. If, Sir, with the approval of this Parliament, land were to be declared a released area, then we should be able to take the transaction further because we think that we have a reasonably binding agreement, otherwise we should not have come to this Parliament with such haste. In this regard I just want to say, arising out of what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said, that we should like to maintain the productivity of all the farms we purchase; that is our approach. In the past we have had the experience of certain improved farms being handed over to chiefs and of so-called “peasant farming” subsequently being practised there, with the result that productivity has been detrimentally affected. I wholeheartedly agree with him that the productivity of any land we buy should be maintained as far as possible, and that is why we have involved the BIC and will probably make use of agents, of White farmers, where necessary. I can tell hon. members that in the course of this year we purchased a citrus farm on the Kat River for approximately R1 million. That farmer continued to manage the farm until October, and through the XDC we are now taking over there in order to maintain productivity—I think this is very important—but the Black people are being involved in this matter as soon as possible. In conclusion, I just want to mention again that the owners of the Zebediela Estates, too, are desirous that we acknowledge the fact that the property is being offered at a price below its market value; that is what they feel and that is what they say, too, and I should like to repeat it here. I do not know what the difference is between the market value and the price we are going to pay, but they are convinced that by offering this estate at a price of R8 million, they are also contributing towards the development of the homelands. I am convinced that this is in fact the case, and I should like to express our gratitude to wards them for this.

Mr. Speaker, I think that I have now replied very briefly to all the points touched on here, and I want to let that suffice.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—97: Albertyn. J. T.; Aucamp. P.

L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Boraine, A. L.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, R. M.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Eglin, C. W.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lorimer, R. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Otto, J. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Smit, H. H.; Suzman, H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Van Wyk, A. C. (Win-burg); Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waddell, G. H.

Tellers: N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—33: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Mitchell, M. L.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Streicher, D. M.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the delegation of powers for the appointment of Bantu Affairs Commissioners. I would be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister would give us the reasons for extending the authority for making appointments. In this instance the authority is being extended from the Minister to the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development and the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner concerned. I think I can tell the hon. gentleman that the clause has our support, but we would nevertheless like to hear his reasons for this extension of powers.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of the specific functions in terms of the Act of 1927, the appointment of persons who are able to fulfil these functions has often resulted in practice in quite a number of matters being referred back to the Minister for his approval. For the smooth functioning of the department, especially in this case, we want Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioners, who are persons with authority, to perform this task. They are familiar with matters and it is in fact on their recommendation that the Minister in the end has to take the decision. It is a question of efficient organization.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, in this clause we have a further extension of the same principle that is contained in clause 1, which we have just disposed of, and I presume that the answer will be the same as those the hon. the Minister gave in reply to queries raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana on that clause. The hon. the Minister said that it was in effect really the Secretary or any other officer of the Department of Bantu Administration who take the decisions which are then forwarded to the hon. the Minister or the Deputy Minister merely for rubber stamping. I cannot say that we are altogether happy about this sort of provision. Hon. members on that side of the House know that we have repeatedly argued against a provision which provides that any other officer if authorized thereto by the Minister should have this power. To take it to its extreme, “any other officer” includes the tea-boy as well. We can accept, of course, that the hon. the Deputy Minister would not delegate such power to the tea-boy. However, this is the reason why we have always objected to legislation which is so widely framed that it could in effect apply to the tea-boy as well. We would rather see in the amendments under (a) and (b) the words “any other senior officer or an officer above a certain rank” or words to that effect, because what we are dealing with here is the power to decide where a Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s court will sit and the area of jurisdiction of that court. These are matters of importance and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us an assurance that he will in fact only delegate these powers to senior officials. I would almost go so far as to say that I believe he should give us an assurance that he will only delegate the power to officials with the rank of or above a Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner.

Above which rank?

Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner. The third amendment contained in this clause is a request to this Committee to agree that in future the regulations to be made in terms of the Bantu Administration Act of 1927 could be made by the Minister alone and not by the State President. When regulations are made by the State President, it is in fact the Cabinet which decides these matters. It is a manifestation which is occurring more and more with legislation which is brought before us, viz. that no longer does the Government believe that the Cabinet should take the responsibility of promulgating regulations in terms of this Act. It seems to give the Minister concerned unfettered power to promulgate regulations on his own without any reference to the Cabinet and without the levelling effect of reference to other members of the Cabinet. Of course, this is leading to empire building by individual Ministers and by individual funds. I believe this is not a good manifestation for yet another reason. That is that I believe that there are times where a Minister acting individually and on his own can make mistakes. Recently we had an example of what I consider to be a mistake. There the Minister in fact overstepped his authority. He went beyond what this House really intended he should have in the form of power to make regulations. I wonder if a decision would have been taken if this had not been done by a Minister acting on his own. I refer to a proclamation issued earlier this year, No. R95/1974, which amended the regulations in terms of the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936 promulgated in 1969. In regulation 72 of proclamation R288/1969 we read—

A presumption is raised here which can be rebutted by an accused when he is charged with unlawful occupation of Trust land. The hon. the Minister has amended that regulation and it now reads:

Here we have a situation where by proclamation in the Gazette the hon. the Minister raises another presumption and it is a presumption which I believe is bad at law. I am sure the hon. the Minister knows that, if he had come to this House with legislation to raise such a presumption, it would have been opposed by this side of the House. I raise this matter now as an example whereby I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he must not abuse his powers if these matters are granted to him in terms of this subsection. Such matters really require legislation or, at least, the sanction of …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member is not at all discussing the clause with which we are dealing.

Order! As I understand him, the hon. member mentioned an example simply to explain the principle. The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I did raise it merely as an example. I would like to say by way of explanation that this particular proclamation is a subject dealt with in the third report of the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs and I am told that this report will not come under discussion. I have therefore taken this opportunity of using it as an example this afternoon.

So you drag it in here.

The hon. the Minister is quite right. I have dragged it in here as an example because I believe that this matter should be aired as an example of what a Minister can and does do when he is given this sort of power.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member’s real objection is to the term “or any other officer” being used here. Clause 2(1)(b) reads:

In the following clause as well, reference is made to “any other officer”. This is what is causing the Opposition problems. What they really want to know is the status of the officer. They have just indicated by using an example that one may, in consequence of the delegation of powers, charge such an officer with taking important decisions. The hon. members want to have the assurance that the officer to whom decision taking powers are going to be delegated will have a certain status. At the Second Reading I explained here that the ranks in the department had been changed. Even Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioners do not all have the same rank. The position is that if we were to tie the delegation to one rank, it could in practice amount to delegating powers to an officer having a different status. However, it is also true that one changes the designation of a rank. In practice this causes major problems. All I can do is to give hon. members the assurance that these people hold high and responsible positions. The Minister does not delegate powers without first having discussed the matter with the Secretary of the Department. In delegating powers, he also selects his people so as to ensure that the delegated powers will not be abused. We feel that if we were to impose further restrictions in this regard, it would be prejudicial to the smooth functioning of the department. We should prefer not to mention specific ranks here.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

In the previous two clauses we have not opposed the granting of delegated powers as set out in those clauses because, whilst one has a certain amount of caution in this regard, we accept that in a large organization a measure of delegation is accepted and necessary. However, in clause 3 we are dealing with an important power and the amendment proposed in clause 3 is that a power formerly exercisable by the Governor-General, which means that a decision by the Executive Council is required, is now to be exercised by the Minister. That is an old-established power, the power in terms of section 29 of the Bantu Administration Act. It is in respect of non-Bantu persons—the ability, if they commit certain offences, to deny them entry into certain areas of the country and, in respect of Bantu persons who commit certain offences, that they shall not depart from certain places to which they have been assigned in South Africa. It is, in many ways, a modified form of banishment order.

It is an old established power and the need for it has been recognized for a long time, but we believe that there ought to be a measure of formality surrounding the exercising of the power and not merely a ministerial decision which constitutes the Minister signing a document after discussion with his senior Ministers. As the law stands at the present time it would warrant, I believe, a report by the Minister concerned to the Cabinet, discussion by them and their recommendation to the State President for a decision by him through a formal document. In other words, it would require greater investigation and greater formality of approach before the power, which is a considerable one, could be exercised. We consequently believe that the law as it stands at the present time, is to be preferred to the amendment which is embodied in clause 3 and we shall accordingly oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, as I said in my Second Reading speech on this Bill. I am opposed to this clause. It makes it a little easier for the powers-that-be to use these really vast powers of banishment, of destroying a man’s life, because that in fact is what it means. I am afraid I spoke rather too soon the other day when I said I was very glad to be able to say that at the present stage this power to banish somebody under the 1927 Bantu Administration Act was no longer being used. To the best of my knowledge there was only one person in respect of whom banishment orders had not yet been withdrawn and that person was, anyway, at home as the orders had been temporarily suspended. But this very afternoon I get news that an attorney living in Mdantsane has been served with a banishment order in terms of the Bantu Administration Act of 1927 and has been asked to remove himself to the district of Herschel. I am very much hoping that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give this matter his consideration and will at least give this man some time in which to organize his affairs before he has to remove himself from his home. I am obviously against the existence of this power in principle, but I cannot, however, debate that in any detail here because we are not discussing the principal Act, but I can object, and indeed do object, to any variation of the existing power which makes it even easier for the Minister to use this very Draconian power he has over the lives of people. I, too, am going to vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I have sympathy with the allegations of hon. members that not enough attention will be given to the particularly important action which may flow from this amendment and that the matter of taking a decision rests with the Minister and no longer with the State President. I want to assure hon. members that the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton was the subject of mutual discussions during the past six months, and that many problems had to be overcome before a decision was given. However, the practical application of this provision again comes to the fore, namely, that there are cumbersome preparations. I do not think the hon. member need have any fear that the Minister will act less responsibly when he has to decide on his own than when he has to make a recommendation to the Cabinet and to the State President. As I said during the Second Reading debate, the streamlining and smooth functioning of the department was thoroughly investigated before this amendment to the Act was proposed. I am afraid that we shall have to accept the position as it is, because we are satisfied that the necessary attention will be given to these cases. If the Opposition parties do not agree, we just have to accept that we do not agree in this regard. We feel, however, that it is in the interest of efficiency to have the legislation in the way it has been proposed.

Mr. Chairman, I am very glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister does at least see our point of view on this particular clause. It is bad enough that a group of people, constituted as a Cabinet, should be able to decide on the freedom of movement of a person. However, when that power, which we are prepared to give to the courts because we believe that the courts are specially constituted for that particular purpose, is usurped by one individual, who will then decide on the freedom of movement of a person, something which can affect the livelihood, health, family life, in fact every facet of that person’s life, I really cannot accept it. The hon. the Deputy Minister has not motivated his case. He has not told us why he does not want a case of this nature to come to the Cabinet. Is there urgency in a matter like this? Let me give an illustration. This can only happen after a man has been convicted in a court of law for inciting hatred between Bantu and White or Bantu and some other group. After that, the Cabinet meets and makes a decision about the banishment or not of the person concerned. But I do not know why it should be necessary that only one person must take the decision. Is there any urgency? Is there hurry? Is it not possible to call the Cabinet together to take the decision? Why is it necessary that this decision should be taken by one man alone, e.g. the Minister?

Mr. Chairman, I just cannot comprehend why hon. members opposite are objecting so strongly to this clause. I want to point out to hon. members that it is completely within the power of the Minister to prohibit any ordinary person—not a criminal—from entering a Bantu homeland or a Bantu area, unless he has a permit. Now, if from the nature of the case, it is competent for the Minister to prohibit any ordinary member of the public from doing so, why should he not have the right of prohibiting an offender from doing so in terms of this clause? This provision is in agreement with the Act which has been in existence since 1927. It is “trite law”. In any case, the Minister has always been the person who has exercised this right throughout. I also want to refer to the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister, in which he pointed out that there were, as was revealed by a departmental inquiry instituted in this connection, quite a number of powers, as a matter of fact up to 31, which, according to the recommendations of that departmental commission, ought to be delegated in this way and sometimes even to a lower level. That is why I am completely unable to understand what fault hon. members have to find with this. I believe that they do not have any real objection. This is just being done for the sake of appearances, because they have become possessed with the idea of delegation. But, Sir, let us take the matter further.

Order! The hon. member should not go too far. This clause does not deal with delegation. We are discussing the question whether it should be the State President or the Minister who should take the decision.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am coming back to that. The objection of the Opposition is that this power should not be exercised by the Minister. I am making this point to prove that the Minister, according to the inquiry that was ordered, is indeed the competent and proper person to exercise this power. We have a parallel to this in that the hon. the Minister of Justice, another member of the Cabinet, is empowered to issue all banning orders. They are not referred to the Cabinet, or the State President. The issue of banning orders is vested in the Minister of Justice. It is an example of a similar instance and for that reason I think it is perfectly competent and desirable for the hon. the Minister to have this power and that it is very good administration for things to be done in this way.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ermelo was correct if he was referring to section 29(3)(a). It is indeed so that the Minister has the power of restricting the admission of any person to a scheduled Bantu area, etc. However, the problem is with regard to subsection (3) (b), which is not covered by the instance mentioned by the hon. member for Ermelo. In this connection it is clear, after all, that the person has to be convicted of an offence under section 29(1), for subsection (3) to come into operation. In other words, the person concerned has already been convicted of an offence. Under subsection (3) the possibility is now being created for imposing an additional penalty in that in terms of subsection (3), if he is a Bantu …

Order! I think the hon. member is completely off-side at the moment. We are not dealing with the principal Act now. We are dealing with the amending Bill only. If the hon. member reads subsection (3) he will see that it deals with the question as to whether the Minister or the State President should issue that order.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This happens for the very reason that the provisions of subsection (3) are so far-reaching. In the light of the far-reaching provisions, it is my contention that the Minister should not exercise this power on his own, but that the importance of this power, especially in the light of the fact that the person has already been convicted by a court, requires that it should be considered by the Cabinet as such before further action is taken. For that reason I in all honesty cannot see why it is necessary for this power to be transferred from the State President to the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member for Edenvale that in terms of section 29(5) of the principal Act, the Minister already has this power in respect of a foreigner. The provisions of clause 3 of this amending Bill before us, merely seeks to extend those powers to persons other than foreigners.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—90: Albertyn, J. T.; Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Louw, E.; Malan. G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter. J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubeheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk. A. C. (Maraisburg); Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen. M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—38: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4:

This clause has the effect of widening the jurisdiction of the courts of the Bantu commissioners in the sense that two types of litigants, i.e. a deceased estate and a Bantu corporate body, can now litigate in the court of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner. As I understood him, the hon. the Deputy Minister during the Second Reading debate said that this was felt desirable because they were courts where there was no limit to the jurisdiction in so far as the amount was concerned. Now, I can quite understand the wish to allow deceased estates of Bantu persons and Bantu corporate bodies to litigate in the courts of the Bantu commissioners, but I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister should not consider imposing limits of jurisdiction similar to those which exist in the magistrates’ courts. It goes without saying, and I do not think one has to dwell on it, that we differentiate between matters which can be decided by a magistrate’s court, that is to say civil proceedings, and those which can be decided in a Supreme Court, by the amount which is involved so far as money is concerned, or by question of status such as divorce This is done not because judges are more intelligent than magistrates, but because the rather more formal procedure adopted in the Supreme Court allows perhaps of a more careful enquiry than is possible in the rather swifter procedure which is necessary in the magistrate’s court. I think I have stated the position fairly, to distinguish between jurisdiction in the magistrate’s court and in the Supreme Court or a superior court. Now, this is a matter of every-day experience, and one simply states a fact when one states that. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister should not consider bringing in a similar provision limiting causes to those below a certain amount in so far as the activities of the courts of the Bantu commissioners are concerned. We are moving, after all, away generally from causes in terms of Bantu law and coming, particularly with this amendment, into causes or disputes which turn on the ordinary common law of South Africa. So whilst we support the clause, I would ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to bringing in limitations in respect of the courts of the Bantu commissioners similar to those, although not necessarily the same, which apply in the magistrates’ courts.

Sir, the point the hon. member has just raised, is, of course, not something which is relevant here. Provision is being made here for corporate bodies only, for which there is no provision at the moment. The question raised by the hon. member concerns the jurisdiction of the courts of Bantu Affairs Commissioners, and that is a completely different matter, but I may tell him that we are prepared to go into his request. However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with this particular clause. We shall go into the matter; naturally I cannot tell him today what the outcome will be, but I give the undertaking that the department will go into his request.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, here we are dealing once again with delegated authority in terms of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, and the proposal here is to allow the functions of the Minister to be exercised by any officer of the Department of Bantu Administration acting under his authority. Sir, I do not think it is necessary for me to tell this Committee that perhaps the Bantu legislation which is of the widest ambit is the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. The activities of the Minister acting in terms of that Act affect almost every aspect of life of the urban Black. It is a very considerable power which is exercised there by the Minister over a very wide field indeed, over a very large number of people. Consequently, Sir, I think one should approach any delegation of that power with a measure of caution, and whilst we accept once again that in a large department like the Minister’s department, which is virtually an empire, some delegation of authority is necessary if the department is to function—the Minister cannot possibly do it all himself; that I accept—we suggest that there ought to be a limitation down the ladder as to how far his powers can be delegated, and accordingly I should like to move—

Sir, I think all those concerned have a copy of the amendment, so there is no embarrassment in that regard. Sir, we have chosen the rank of Deputy Secretary for this amendment because it seems, so far as one knows the Minister’s department, that at that level there is a degree of specialization, and whilst we understand the need for the delegation of authority and power, we do not think that it should go below the rank of Deputy Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, we will support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

Are you going to help him again?

When he is reasonable I support him, and when he is not reasonable, I do not; it is as simple as that. Unfortunately he is very erratic. Mr. Chairman, we discussed this quite fully really in the Second Reading debate, and I must say that I, too, am nervous of putting the vast powers contained in the Urban Areas Act into the hands of “any officer of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development”. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister has many very efficient officers working under him, but it should really be some senior man to whom he delegates his powers in this respect, because the Urban Areas Act carries tremendous powers, some of which were mentioned during the Second Reading debate. It allows the local authorities to make provision for adequate and suitable accommodation for Africans employed in that area; it empowers the local authority to remove, to curtail or abolish locations, villages and residential areas; it provides for the power to have work carried out if the local authority has not done so; it provides for powers in relation to Coloured people residing in these villages; for powers to disapprove of the acquisition of land; and for powers to order persons conducting schools and other institutions for Bantu outside the location to cease to do so, just to mention some of the powers provided for in the Act. It contains the very important church clause about which there was considerable debate in this House many years ago; it provides for the power to prohibit meetings, assemblies or gatherings attended by Bantu if the Minister is of the opinion that such a meeting is likely to cause a nuisance to residents in the area, and so on and so forth. Sir, these are very extensive powers. The Act also provides for the power to order the establishment of advisory boards, to withdraw the licences of officials and so on, and I think that some limitation ought to be placed on the Minister’s right to delegate these wide powers to any official in his department. We will support the hon. member’s amendment.

Sir, it is true that the words as printed, i.e. “and includes any officer of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development acting under his authority”, do create the impression that the Minister will delegate all his powers all at once, but the practical position is simply that he will, after having given thorough consideration to the position, delegate selected powers only, not all his powers. In other words, the Minister will give thorough consideration to what powers he wants to retain and what powers he has to delegate for the purposes of practical administration. If we were to accept the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, it would mean that no powers could be delegated by the Minister to officers below the rank of Deputy Secretary. I think there are only four Deputy Secretaries in the whole of our department who, in fact, specialize in various directions. The acceptance of the hon. member’s amendment would immediately prejudice the efficient functioning of the department. For that reason I am unfortunately unable to accept the amendment. It is the Minister’s prerogative to decide what powers he is going to delegate. He may delegate these powers to a lower official, but what powers he delegates to whom, is and remains his responsibility. To tie his powers of delegation to a certain level will prejudice the efficient functioning of the department to such an extent that I, unfortunately, cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

The effect of this clause is to widen the areas within which authority can be granted for the sale of packaged Bantu beer. Areas are to be extended to include prescribed areas outside the jurisdiction of local authorities. This in itself has our support. We have no objection to it. However, I should like the hon. the Minister to give his attention to two aspects. One of the aspects is the commonly experienced unauthorized sale, or sale by unauthorized persons, of Bantu beer. One finds the beer hawked all over the country by unauthorized persons. This gives rise to the second aspect which is the pollution of the countryside by empty Bantu beer containers which are usually made of a substance not easily destroyed by natural elements. One consequently finds the countryside littered with containers of this kind. Usually the beer has been purchased from persons who are not authorized to sell it in the first instance. Whilst one recognizes that alcoholic beverages, if sold under control, fulfil a need, I would like the Deputy Minister to give us his assurance that he will inquire into these matters to see whether this mischief can be controlled.

Mr. Chair men, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that an investigation has already been made. We shall have to conduct still further investigations and negotiate methods of combating this evil. I agree with him that it is annoying and disturbing and that it could lead to abuse. The department is giving this matter its constant attention, I wholeheartedly agree with him that we should try to do something to combat it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, this clause provides for certain laws which are applicable in the Republic to apply in the homeland areas. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister would give us some idea of the type of law he would wish to apply in those areas. Secondly, I should like to draw his attention to the proposed new section 50(2E) on page 13 and to make a comment. This new amendment we are introducing is such as to make the process of the High Court of the homelands run throughout the Republic and be served and executed within the Republic. In other words, court process in the homelands will be made officially recognized in the Republic and vice versa by means of this amendment. I wonder if it has ever occurred to hon. gentlemen opposite that difficulties in this connection were one of the reasons that led to the union of the four provinces which existed prior to 1910. I wonder if they have given thought to the fact that here we are doing exactly the reverse of what we tried to do at that time.

Mr. Chair man. I think the hon. member wants to know what type of laws will be made applicable there. The Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Admission Act will, for example, be one of the Acts.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, this is a clause which we shall be supporting but which one supports with a measure of reluctance. We have here a new concept. This clause empowers investment corporations which have entered into agreements with entrepreneurs to establish enterprises in the homelands to indemnify those entrepreneurs against any loss which in the opinion of the Minister cannot be recovered in a court of law and against which, in his opinion, there can be no insurance cover. It also allows the Minister of Finance of the Republic to take over the liability pursuant to any loss being experienced by an entrepreneur and a claim being made for indemnity against the corporation concerned. In his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister indicated broadly that this power was being asked for because it was felt necessary that indemnities of this type be given if there was to be development on an adequate scale in the homeland areas. It is because—and I hope the hon. member for Lichtenburg is listening—we believe in the large-scale development of the homelands and because we realize that under this Government there can be no such large-scale development unless we have a clause of this kind, that we are prepared to support it at this Committee Stage. I do not think that it would be out of place for me to indicate that this clause perhaps exemplifies more graphically than any other clause the difference between the policies of the Government and the policies of the official Opposition because the simple stark fact of the matter is that in terms of Government policy you cannot have effective industrial development of the homeland areas without the guarantees contained in this clause. In terms of the policy of the United Party, which stands for a sharing of power within one State, this clause would be wholly unnecessary and you would nevertheless be able to encourage and to have industrial development of the homelands areas. Having said that and having given an example of the merits of the policy of this side of the House and the patent demerit of the Government’s policy in this respect, I should like to move the amendment which I have circulated—

What one requires is that if these dangers exist and if these apprehensions which exist in a clause of this kind—I assume they do, otherwise the hon. gentleman would not have come forward with this—I believe that some of the responsibility for what may take place after independence should be shared by the homeland Governments concerned. That is to say that the required indemnity and the required guarantee which is embodied in this clause should not merely be the responsibility of the Republican Government, but that a similar and equal responsibility should be placed upon the homeland concerned. I say that because I believe and my party believes in the principle of a free society and private enterprise. We believe that these principles should be encouraged in South Africa and that they should be encouraged in the homelands as well. It appears to be against some sort of invasion in that field that this clause is being asked for. Consequently I ask this House to approve the amendment which I have put forward embodying, as it does, the principle of a sharing of that responsibility to indemnify any loss which may occur in terms of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the arguments of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I am very pleased to learn from him that their policy holds certain advantages. One of those advantages is that we do not need an amendment of the law such as this. Of course, we shall not, under those circumstances, be able to argue about all the other problems for which they will require legislation to implement their policy successfully. Nevertheless, I have some sympathy with the hon. members’ standpoint, to the effect that the homelands should be involved and should accept responsibility. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the existing agreements are being concluded between the BDC, the entrepreneur and the homeland government. Therefore it is a triple agreement they are already involved in.

The next point is that we are unable to accept an amendment in connection with the present legislation which prescribes conditions for future independence. I believe this is something that may be discussed fruitfully in the future. However, I cannot accept that we should now write into the law what has to happen when a homeland becomes independent, even if it only concerns this specific aspect. Therefore, I am unable to accept the member’s amendment, but the hon. member should bear in mind that when a homeland becomes independent, something which may possibly happen in the near future, matters such as this should be brought forward and be given due consideration when laws regulating independence come up for discussion in this House. I want to give the assurance again that the agreements binding on the homeland governments at this stage are of a threefold nature. Unfortunately, I am unable to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—37: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven (’t Hooft,) R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Noes—90: Albertyn, J. T.; Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard. S. P.; Bodenstein, P; Botha. G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus. A. S. D.; Greef, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis. J. C.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Van Wyk, A. C. (Wind-burg); Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and C. V. van der Merwe.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Order! With reference to the ruling I gave recently to the effect that the “ayes” will not necessarily vote on my right, I just want to inform hon. members that this is the first time in the history of this Parliament that the “ayes” have voted to the left of the Chair.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name, as follows—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, the amendment being introduced by this clause has to do with the question of the acquisition of citizenship in the areas under the jurisdiction of various territorial authorities. At the present time, Bantu persons born in the area of a territorial authority or those persons domiciled in the area of a territorial authority, acquire citizenship of the area of jurisdiction, the homeland, of the particular authority. It is now desired to alter that provision because of the problems which arise as a result of substantial urban townships being adjacent to our metropolitan industrial areas. Many of them are in the homelands themselves, such as Umlazi in Durban. In terms of this amendment, it is desired to bring about a situation where citizenship can be acquired in a more defined area as the result of a relationship with the ethnic group which occupies, dominates and governs the area concerned. To be more specific, there have been, for example in Umlazi, Pondos or other racial groups, who have either been passing through or being there temporarily in order to obtain work in Durban, living and having children born in that Zulu area. In this way, those Pondos or other Bantu racial groups have acquired a domicile in an area such as Umlazi, although not being akin to the ethnic group that happens to have governmental authority over the area concerned, which in the case of Umlazi, of course, is the Zulu group. One can understand the argument, but we would like to know what the views of the homeland leaders are in this respect. We are dealing here with citizenship of a territory which has its own government in embryo and which, in terms of Government policy, will eventually have an independent Government. I would have thought that citizenship of an area is very much a matter which is very close to the heart of the Government of that area, closer, indeed, to the Zulu territorial authority in respect of Natal for example, than to the Government of South Africa in terms of Government philosophy. If I am correct in this, and I think no one can gainsay what I say, what is then the attitude of the homeland authorities to this alteration to the laws relating to citizenship? These are quite extensive. They apply to all the homeland authorities. They constitute considerable changes from the law as applied at the present time. I believe that we should be guided to a large extent, not by our own preconceived ideas of who should be a citizen of which homeland, but by what the homeland leaders believe should be the law governing citizenship in this regard.. I say that because not only their own views are important, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me that as strong views are held amongst permanent inhabitants of our urban Bantu areas as regards citizenship as are held among homeland leaders and the people in the homelands themselves. I will be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister would give us some information as to what the homeland governments feel in this regard and not only the homeland Governments, but also any of the recognized Bantu leaders.

Mr. Chairman, we have now had the same type of argument as before. I have already explained that I have introduced this amendment on the request of one of the homeland leaders. It has been very thoroughly discussed with him and referred to all the political leaders in the various homelands for their discussion. Now, however, reference is being made to other leaders. I do not know what is meant by “other leaders”, unless it is the same as before, when specific inquiries were made as to the views of the urban Bantu. In this respect our reply is quite clearly that the urban Bantu has political representation in his homeland that he has liaison with it. The political leaders of the homelands in turn have very strong liaison with Bantu in the urban areas. As far as we are concerned, and as the hon. member rightly says, this is an important matter for the various Bantu peoples, and it is for them to decide. They have decided on this amendment and there is nothing more for me to say by way of explanation. The liaison with any group of their people, whether they are living in the White area or in their own area, naturally is of no concern to us. They decided on this and for that reason this amendment was introduced.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to the explanation given by the hon. the Deputy Minister but I am sorry to say that I find his explanation unacceptable. If one looks at the nationality laws of any country of the world, one will find that the laws that are universally accepted and which can be made to be accepted, are in fact those nationality laws which are decided upon and determined by countries in the full exercise of their own sovereignty. We have here a set of rules which, to say the very least, are extraordinary. They impose principles and concepts which would be unacceptable to any sovereign nation in the world. According to these laws, if they were to be applied to White people, I could qualify, at least under section 3(l)(c) and (d) inserted by clause 19, to be a Frenchman. This would be a determination imposed upon me by virtue of two paragraphs which have nothing to do with my inclinations and nothing to do with my allegiance; in terms of these paragraphs the use of languages, descent and so forth, would make me a Frenchman willy-nilly and whether or not I wish to be a South African. This kind of determination in the modern world is not sensible. I believe that if we are serious and if the Government is serious, in thinking about other independent nations with the right to determine their own laws and in particular their laws of nationality, it is entirely wrong to impose concepts such as these on nations which are on the way to self-government and independence. I believe that this is really a kind of colonial law, which has, properly understood, nothing to do with the laws of nationality practised in other parts of the world. I believe that although the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that he has consulted with some of the homeland leaders about this …

All of them.

I accept that but I believe that he has consulted with them on the basis of their present relationship where what the Minister says and advises tends, by and large, to be accepted. I think that if they were duly contemplating independence as separate nations and if they were to set up their own governments, with Ministries of the Interior and of Foreign Affairs competent to consider the relationships they would have with other nations and the problems that arise out of separate nationalities, such as the difficulties which arise in such matters as extradition and the establishment of nationality in matters of international dispute, they would find that paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) make nonsense. They are not relevant to modem life as it is lived in the international community. I think that this clause deals with homelands, that it deals with national policy. It deals with all kinds of concepts which are inherent in the policies of this Government but it has very little to do with the concept of separate independent nationalities as properly understood in the modern world. I believe that these provisions do not stand up to serious examination.

Mr. Chairman, this question of nationality is becoming more and more an issue among the leaders of the Bantu homelands. There is a feeling among many of these Bantu leaders that the cream of their people is being skimmed off. They are not being left behind in the homelands. They are moving into the urban areas. I know that the policy of this Government is that every one of those urban Bantu belongs to one homeland or another. I wonder whether we are not creating a situation here where we are going to have competition among the various homelands for the citizenship of their “citizens” within the urban areas. The hon. the Minister in reply to the Second Reading debate did say that this clause was inserted at the specific request of the leader of the Lebowa homeland. Am I correct?

No, the Bophuthatswana homeland.

I beg your pardon. It was introduced at the specific request of the leader of the Bophuthatswana homeland. I believe that this clause was introduced because of the very question which I now want to raise, viz. the competition for citizenship on the part of the persons resident in the townships in the Transvaal, particularly in Soweto and Ga Rankuwa. I do not know whether Ga Rankuwa is the one I mean but I think the hon. the Minister knows the one I am referring to.

Is it in the homelands?

Yes, but is this not the area where we have a so-called international zone?

No.

It is near Ga Rankuwa and there is an international zone where citizens of the other homelands also have their rights and are also able to live. Is it Ga Rankuwa?

No, it is Mabopane.

Mabopane. Thank you. I appreciate the assistance of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I believe that there is this competition there. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister aware of this fact and does he believe that these amendments which he is now introducing are going to resolve this problem? As I say, the homelands themselves are jealous of their people. They are particularly jealous of those of their people who have developed and advanced, who have shown initiative, who are today the entrepreneurs, the businessmen and the industrialists in their own ways in each of these townships. Most of those people are in fact resident within the townships. I raise this as an issue which can cause trouble between the various homelands and I should be very glad to know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has in fact considered this matter in introducing these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, it is precisely because of the difficulty experienced by homeland governments in meeting that particular problem in an area such as the one mentioned by the hon. member that this Bill is before the Committee tonight. The homeland governments will now have a larger measure of control in circumstances such as those.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the question of prisons and the ability of the homeland Governments to set up a prisons authority to run prisons. To this we have no objection, but it goes further than that, Sir; it empowers the authorities in the Republic of South Africa to transfer prisoners from South African goals to serve their sentences in goals in the homelands, and a number of questions arise from this. Firstly, I would like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister what steps would be taken to ensure that the conditions in the homelands prisons are at least as good as the conditions in the prisons in the Republic; secondly, can a prisoner be transferred from a gaol in the Republic to a prison in a homeland without his authority or consent? Sir, I ask that question because the further question arises what facilities will be available for the relatives and friends of a prisoner convicted in the municipality of Cape Town, for example, to visit that prisoner, who has been transferred from the Western Cape to serve his sentence in a prison in the Transkei. There is the question of travel and expense in order to get there; there is the question of the cost of accommodation whilst the wife or the relative is visiting the prisoner, and then there is the expense of travelling back. There is the additional problem of where the prisoner is to be released, because if a poor man who has his home in the Western Cape is convicted here of an offence which warrants a gaol sentence and he is then transferred to the Transkei to serve his sentence, it may be quite impossible financially for him, after serving his sentence in the Transkei, to find his way back to the Western Cape. Sir, these are real problems. They are problems upon which we would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s views, and if we receive satisfactory replies, then this is not a clause that we will oppose.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana has mentioned the example of the Transkei, but the Transkei Constitution Act has already been amended to make provision for this.

I mentioned it only as an example.

The specific problems mentioned by him have not yet arisen. The hon. member asked what guarantee there was that the conditions in the goals in the homeland areas would be the same as the conditions in the goals here in the Republic. At the moment, of course, the goals in the homeland areas are to some extent under the control of White staff; Bantu staff are steadily being trained, and the standards in the prisons in the homelands are therefore exactly the same as in prisons in White South Africa. As soon as these people achieve complete independence, it will be their concern, of course, but the process of evolutionary development and training is already under way there.

In the second place the hon. member referred to facilities which would be available for visiting if someone were to be transferred from a goal in Cape Town, for example, to a goal in the Transkei. I may tell him that persons may at present be transferred from one goal to another by the Prisons authorities. The same facilities would therefore be available there. I take it that short-term prisoners would not easily be transferred; I cannot see this happening, but what would happen—and I think this is basically the object of the legislation—is that a long-term prisoner who is a citizen of some homeland would prefer to be sent to a goal in his own homeland rather than to be detained in a goal in a White area. I think that this is what this provision is basically concerned with. If such a person has been sentenced in the White part of the Republic, it would mean that he might already have come from the homeland to work here and that he would then be returned, if he is sentenced, to serve his sentence there. Any really disrupting practical problems which might arise would naturally be kept in mind by the authorities in handling these very delicate matters. I do not think I have anything to add to that. This is more or less the way the whole matter will work.

There is one other question I should like to put to the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister, I am sure, will appreciate that there are certain rights vested in certain individuals in terms of section 10, those who have a right to be in urban areas. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister give us the assurance that this provision will not be used to circumvent the rights which are given to the urban Bantu to acquire permanence in the urban areas in terms of section 10? Can he give us the assurance that this will not be used to circumvent those rights in so far as they exist?

The position is that the protection enjoyed by people under section 10 cannot be circumvented by means of this provision. We cannot see this happening in practice, nor do we intend that it should.

I must admit that it is comforting to receive the assurances of the hon. the Deputy Minister, but I wonder why he has not written into this clause those particular assurances he has given us. I particularly refer to the assurances, firstly, regarding long-term and short-term prisoners. The hon. the Deputy Minister says short-term prisoners are not going to be transferred. I do not know why he does not write into the clause that short-term prisoners will not be transferred. I will tell you why I raise the matter. If you look at the new section 15A(2), it says that a convicted Bantu person who has been sentenced to imprisonment and is still liable to serve the sentence imposed or part thereof may be transferred, etc. What part thereof? Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister must not pull a face and turn around and ask why. I am simply asking him. He has given an assurance, but what good is that assurance when an affected Bantu person suddenly finds himself moved away and he is in fact only a short-term prisoner? It is no use to him whatsoever, this assurance the Deputy Minister gives tonight, if it is not written into the Act. I wonder whether he will not consider a reasonable amendment, an amendment along those lines which he can introduce before this Bill is taken to the Other Place.

The other point is that the Deputy Minister said, or implied—I got the impression from his reply—that a Bantu person who is removed from the so-called White Republic to a Bantu homeland will only be removed to his own homeland. Was I correct in drawing that inference from what the Deputy Minister said? It was an inference that I drew and I want to urge him to see that this only is what happens. What is the good of taking a Zulu person who is here in Langa and who is convicted for some offence and putting him in a prison in the Ciskei or in Lebowa or in Bophuthatswana? Once again I want to say that if my inference is correct from what the hon. the Deputy Minister said just now, I want to ask him again if he will not write this into the Bill. I do not want to fight with him here tonight. I do not believe it is necessary to fight with him, but I wonder whether he will not at least consider writing into the Bill some provision whereby our prison authorities, authorities which are not under the control of this Minister and who owe this hon. Minister nothing, will be limited in the transfer of the prisoners under their control to the homeland to which the prisoner concerned belongs.

Sir, there is one other question which I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister must tell us about, and that is the question of farm goals, prisons where these people are put to work. To the best of my knowledge none of them exist in the homelands at all. I wonder, however, if it is the hon. the Minister’s intention to assist these homelands to establish such farm prisons where they will be able to work. What is his intention in that regard? Will these people be sent to these farm prisons to do hard labour?

Mr. Chairman, there are no farm goals in the homelands. I do not know whether they would want farm goals in the future. However, I cannot imagine that they would. Now the hon. member wants to know from me whether we would send the prisoners there if they were to decide to have such goals. I do not think we can speculate about that at this stage. That is not the intention at the moment. There are no farm goals in the homelands at the moment, nor do I believe that the homelands would be willing to have such goals. He wants to know, too, why we do not write such a provision into the Act. I just want to refer him to clause 23 of the Bill (the new section 15A(2)(a))—

It is clear from this that these people will transfer a prisoner in consultation with each other. In my opinion no purpose would be served by imposing a restriction or an obligation in that regard. After all, one cannot cover every possibility in legislation. Suffice it to say that the Minister in the homeland and the Minister in the Republic will handle these matters with discretion. I do not think we can go further than that. Therefore I am not prepared to have anything written into the clause in this regard.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24:

Mr. Chairman, I have a question or two to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister in respect of this clause as well. Firstly, in 24(b) on page 21 there is an amendment which enables the Bantu homeland Governments to legislate in connection with the provision of financial assistance to citizens carrying on or undertaking farming operations. I quite approve of this type of empowering law, but I would like to know what the hon. the Deputy Minister envisages in this regard. I do not know of any farming undertaking being carried on by private enterprise in the homelands, i.e. to say by homeland citizens. I would be glad to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister what he has in view in this regard and what developments he hopes will take place, or are taking place in this respect. I support the clause but I would like to know what is involved. Secondly, in the same clause, on page 23 of the Bill, the new section 31(B), there is a whole variety of new fields in respect of which a Bantu homeland Government can legislate. For instance there is tourism, legal aid, there is amusement and entertainment tax and then there is the licensing and control of places of amusement and recreation and there is the control of betting and wagering. There is also the licensing of totalizators. What is the policy in this regard? We know that in South Africa we may not have casinos or places to which people may have recourse for gambling purposes. That is not allowed in the Republic. Is it the intention to permit casinos to be established for example at Umtata, or in a variety of other places one could mention in the homelands, not to mention just outside Eshowe?

You want a licence for one?

Is it the intention to have casinos or to permit casinos to be established in these places? It is remarkable how the chatter in the House dies down when one talks on subjects of this kind. Is it the policy to permit dog racing in these areas? We have horse racing already which I believe has much to commend it, but there are other fields in which betting and wagering take place and where the control and the licensing of that betting and wagering will fall under the homeland Government. I would be glad to hear what the policy of the Government will be in this regard in the interim period prior to the independence of the homelands when I imagine there will be a fever of activity in this field if these powers are genuinely to be exercised.

Mr. Chairman, the first point raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana concerns the financing of farmers and citizens who carry on farming operations. He says he does not know of any individual farmers, but I can tell him that there are fairly large numbers of private farmers in all the homelands. The idea is to allow the homelands to accept legislation in terms of which agricultural financing may be provided, in the first place, to individuals or private farmers and, secondly, to co-operative organizations in particular. In other words, what we are doing is to set them on the road to deal with this very important aspect of financing, which I am deeply interested in, which really involves major development and which constituted one of the bottlenecks. From the nature of the case the homeland governments may decide on the particulars thereof, because we do not lay down the particulars for them as far as these matters are concerned. What we are doing is to give them guidance, and the idea is to finance private farmers and co-operative societies.

In the following paragraph which the hon. member referred to, there is a great variety of matters in respect of which the homelands are allowed to legislate and exercise control. Of course, this already applies in the case of the Transkei. We do not have any casinos in the Transkei yet, but as hon. members can see, it is for those people to decide on the matter. We do not tell the homelands that they have certain powers and then place a restriction on the manner in which they will be able to exercise those powers. This is really a matter for them to decide. We cannot give people certain rights and at the same time deny them the power to decide on those rights. It is therefore quite clear that they will have the power to decide on all the matters mentioned in the legislation. This the Transkei is doing already and no problems have arisen in that respect. Neither do we expect any problems to arise in the other areas. I have seen in the Press that applications have been submitted for casinos, or whatever they may be, in Bophuthatswana. I have also seen that the Chief Minister said later that these were merely rumours and that they have never considered anything of this nature. In any case, it is for the various homeland governments to decide what they are going to do with these powers.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to certain of the items inserted by this clause, namely 31I and 31J as inserted by paragraph (e). Item 31I deals with the regulation, restriction and control of horse racing, the prohibition, restriction, regulation, and control of other racing and the restriction, regulation and control of betting and wagering. Item 31J deals with the licensing of totalisators in regard to horse racing. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether due consideration has been given to this aspect particularly in regard to the fact that in the Republic the control of horse racing is mainly in the hands of the Jockey Club of South Africa. In terms of the rules and regulations which appertain to that club, all horse racing in South Africa takes place under the auspices of the S.A. Jockey Club. There is a system of control and of licensing of owners, trainers and jockeys and all those who are connected with horse racing in any way. Horses that are not registered on the studbook are not able to take part in horse racing which is under the control of the Jockey Club of South Africa. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether there was any discussion on this matter with the Jockey Club of South Africa. If the homeland Governments should decide that their control, restriction and regulation of horse racing as is provided for in this clause is wide enough to permit the Jockey Club of South Africa to be the responsible body for the control of horse racing and all that is entailed in horse racing, in the homelands, to ensure that horse racing is carried on in a proper manner and to enable persons who might wish to partake in horse racing in an area under the jurisdiction of the homeland Governments to do so while they still retain the licences they hold in terms of the Jockey Club of South Africa’s rules which, as I have said, are very stringent rules, is the Deputy Minister satisfied that they will be able to to so?

Mr. Chairman, I know nothing about horse racing of course, but I want to say immediately that the Jockey Club of South Africa was not consulted. I have made inquires and they have definitely not been consulted, but I think that if the homeland governments should be interested to such an extent that they would want to enact legislation for the control thereof, they would call in authorities who would take cognizance of what is happening in South Africa. I therefore do not want to anticipate anything, but I think common sense tells one that they will take cognizance of it. We may then advise them how to set about things. The Transkei has not yet decided to do anything in this direction, but they are being given the basic right to introduce something of this nature. It is for them to decide in which way this is ultimately going to be carried out, but I can foresee that, as was said by hon. members, we shall call in expert advice from, for example, the Jockey Club and that they may possibly be given certain rights to exercise control over this matter as well.

Is the clause wide enough to allow for that?

Yes.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25:

Mr. Chairman, the same criterion applies here as applied to clause 8 which we have already dealt with. We are dealing here with the definition of the word “Minister” in so far as the Bantu Affairs Administration Act of 1971 is concerned. The word “Minister” was previously defined as meaning the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. In other words, the very many wide powers which were to be exercised by the Minister in terms of that Act, previously had to be exercised by the Minister personally. It is now proposed to widen the definition of “Minister” to include “any officer of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development acting under his authority”. Just as with the Bantu Urban Areas Act in respect of the urban Bantu, so the Bantu Affairs Administration Act in respect of the rural Bantu and many of the urban Bantu as well, has wide powers governing virtually every aspect of the life of the Bantu who is at work for the White man in the White areas of South Africa. Conditions of service, where he shall work, for whom he shall work, housing, transport, the administration of urban local townships and almost every aspect of life is governed by this Act and by the powers of the Minister in terms of this Act. Once again, whilst one can understand that in a piece of legislation with as wide an ambit as this one, the hon. the Minister would wish to delegate some of his powers, there ought to be, we believe, some limit on the extent down the ladder to which those powers can be delegated. We feel, accordingly, that the delegation of powers ought to be limited to the rank of Deputy Secretary and above.

Accordingly I move as an amendment—

This means that the Minister will have fairly wide powers of delegation. It can relieve him of the burden which rests on him to quite a considerable extent. However, it does not permit him to extend those powers to officials of his department below the rank of Deputy Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, the arguments advanced by the hon. member were basically the same as those we heard in connection with the other clause, because we are concerned with the same type of delegation here. From the nature of the case I can therefore furnish the hon. member with the same reply. The position is that although the Minister does not delegate left, right and centre, he cannot allow himself to be bound by the status or position of a particular official, because this would place certain limitations on him. He delegates with discretion. I therefore regret that I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that the hon. the Deputy Minister keeps hiding behind this explanation, which he gives every time. What are we doing here? With respect, Sir, we are amending the definition of the term “Minister”. This means that in every instance, when you read through the Act and you come across the term “Minister”, you have to read “ ‘Minister’ includes any officer of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development acting under his authority”. We must look at all the powers which the Minister is given in terms of this legislation, and then we must ask ourselves: Do we really intend that these powers should be exercised by any officer of the department acting under the authority of the Minister? I believe that it is not right. I do not believe that we do intend these powers, mighty as they are—as has been pointed out by my friend from Umhlatuzana—to be exercised by any officer of the department. I believe that it is right that we should limit the range of the definition “any officer of the department”. I happened to open the Act here a minute ago, and I found that section 22(2) reads, inter alia, “any regulation made by the Minister …” The Minister is going to make regulations. In this case we now, however, have to read “or an officer of the department acting under his authority”. This includes any officer. According to subsection (3) of section 22, the Minister may furthermore “make regulations as to …”. In this case again we have to read “or any officer of the department acting under his authority”. What are the powers with regard to these regulations? He may make regulations regarding the regulation and control of the land owned by the board, the powers, functions and duties of inspectors, the procedure relating to the calling for and acceptance of tenders for the execution of any work, the adoption of the establishment and maintenance by a board of a medical aid fund, the movement of Bantu labourers between the administration areas of different boards, and generally regarding any other matter in regard to which he may consider it necessary to make regulations. These are wide powers, all of which we are not being asked to hand over to “any officer” of the department. In the circumstances, I believe that it is only reasonable that the hon. the Minister should accept the amendment of my friend, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

Mr. Chairman, the arguments of this hon. member are purely hypothetical. The position, as I have explained, is that the Minister uses his discretion, even if one takes into account the extension of the definition of the term “Minister”. Of course, he uses his discretion in deciding what rank the person concerned should have. Then he puts that in writing and gives it to the Secretary of the department. The fact that a specific official in a certain capacity can do certain things does not mean that this is a blanket delegation. I am sorry to say that we are having the same argument all over again. I leave it at that.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned a day or two ago I had already dealt with the question of the extent to which this Bill impinges upon a free society and the extent to which it impinges upon the rule of law. I would now like to look a little more closely at clauses 1 and 10 of this Bill and to spell out precisely what they mean. I am quite aware that this is merely empowering legislation and, consequently I expect the hon. the Deputy Minister to say to me: What are you worried about? We are not actually legislating to give these powers to a particular Minister in a homeland at this time. I expect him to say to me: We are merely giving these as powers in the various enabling Acts, to cover a field upon which the homeland Governments may legislate if they wish. I am quite aware of that, but these are fields in which the hon. the Deputy Minister, as a Minister of the Republican Government, is empowered to exercise authority in respect of the homelands at the present time. He has these powers in terms of the Unlawful Organizations Act of 1960, and until such time as independence is granted he is empowered to legislate in that field in respect of the whole of the Republic of South Africa—not necessarily only this Deputy Minister, but also one of his colleagues.

Let us look at the powers which we propose to give to the homeland Governments in terms of clause 1 of this Bill. They are to be empowered to legislate “for the purpose of maintaining public safety, public peace, order or good government…” Let us pause here for a moment. This means in simple language that they can do just about anything. These words are sufficiently wide to enable a Minister of a homeland Government to say: “I require these powers for the purpose of maintaining public safety, public peace, order or good government.” If one takes the last of these, good government, nothing could be wider. So it is in regard to those fields that he can legislate in respect of the following. Firstly, there is the prohibition of any organization of which Bantu are members or allowed to become members. In other words, because we are dealing with a homeland area, and because we are dealing with an area inhabited by Bantu people, he can legislate for the prohibition of any organization. Nothing could be wider than that. It could cover any type of organization, a political organization to which one is opposed or a social, business or religious organization. All of these fall within the ambit of this particular empowering clause. The clause goes on to provide that he may prohibit the membership of such an organization, he may prohibit the furtherance of the objects of any organization and he may prohibit or restrict any Bantu being an office-bearer of any such organization. This, of course, could empower the prohibition of the leaders of political parties in the homelands, in the form in which this is drawn. He may further legislate for the restriction of the presence of any Bantu to a particular place or area, which means the power of house arrest or banning powers in relation to a particular town or magisterial district or tribal area merely on the pretext of good government. These provisions also embody the prohibition of the publication or dissemination of the contents of any speech, utterance, writing or statement of any Bantu. This does not necessarily refer to a person belonging to one of the prohibited bodies or organizations, not necessarily a person preaching sedition or undermining the authority of the State but merely a person who in the opinion of the authority concerned makes speeches or utterances which are against good government. One could not wish for provisions wider than these that are set out in clause 1. These provisions are in respect of the Transkei.

If one looks at clause 10, one finds similar provisions, almost identical provisions, in respect of all the other Bantu homelands because clause 10 amends Schedule 1 of the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act.

As I have already indicated, we have expressed the view in the past that there are times, for example, times of war, or times of national emergency, when a Government is entitled to ask its legislature for powers of this kind for a limited period. As I have indicated, this party has been prepared to honour that and support it in the past in the interests of good government and peaceful and orderly progress. However, there is nothing to show either that these empowering provisions are required at this time, separately from the powers that the hon. the Minister or the Government have, or that they will be used only in those recognized times of emergency which I have already indicated are permissible. Consequently I cannot see any good reason for the hon. the Minister asking this House to legislate in this regard. One can understand that in a multi-racial or, as the Government likes to call it, a multi-national country, a greater strain is placed upon the Executive than one would perhaps expect in homogeneous societies. One can understand that in the isolation in which South Africa finds itself there are perhaps greater strains placed upon the Executive than one would find elsewhere in countries which are not so isolated.

You are striking a very positive note.

Mr. Speaker, I always strike a positive note. I defy any hon. member on that side and particularly, if I may say so in a friendly spirit, the hon. member for Potchefstroom, to name an occasion when I have spoken irresponsibly in this House or anywhere else. [Interjections.] Sir, I was dealing with the real difficulties which face the executive authority in South Africa at any time, and particularly at this time. I will accept that difficulties face the executive at this time. I will accept that difficulties face the executive authority in the homelands, in terms of the difficulties which face the Governments of the homeland territorial authorities; I am quite prepared to accept that they have difficulties as well. They are embarking upon a new field of endeavour so far as they are concerned, and they are governing territories that would be required in their turn to look to a new authority and these constitute difficulties, but I believe that one of the skills of government which we require and which we have and which we wish to breed and to generate in those to whom we are delegating authority is the ability and the skill to govern without emergency regulations of this kind even under the most difficult circumstances, because, Sir, this is what the art of democracy is all about. The art of democracy is to acquire skills to carry out executive government under the ordinary laws of the land and without resort to extraordinary legislation and extraordinary powers such as are envisaged and set out in clauses 1 and 10 of this Bill. Sir, what I have said applies to the present Government and it would apply equally to a United Party Government should we be placed in power, and it would apply equally to a United Party Government endeavouring to implement its federal policy. But I believe that there is a deeper ingrained sense of preparedness to govern even under the most difficult circumstances without recourse to Draconian legislation of this kind on our side of the House than there is on the other side of the House, and consequently I believe it is a mistake to bring in legislation of this kind in respect of the various homeland governments. If an emergency situation should arise—and I hope that there never will—either in the homelands or elsewhere, the hon. the Minister and his colleagues have powers at the moment to deal with that situation, and just as we were prepared in 1960, when there was an emergency situation, to support the Government in their efforts to restore law and order—unlike some other people in this House we would not hesitate to do so once again in the event of a national emergency. But, Sir, the present times are not those times, and I am very grateful to be able to say that. Consequently we will not be supporting this Bill at Second Reading.

For the rest, the remaining clauses are not of any great consequence and we are not opposed to them. There are clauses 2, 4 and 8 which enable the Minister to guarantee the raising of loans in respect of the Bantu areas. They have power to raise loans at the present time. The provision that their governments should have statutory authority to furnish guarantees has our support. Then, Sir, there are clauses 3 and 7 which fall together, and these amendments are designed to eliminate overlapping in legislative authority in the homeland areas prior to the stage of self-government, that is to say, an overlapping between the powers of the authorities which have powers at the present time, be they the legislative council of South-West or this Parliament, and the powers which are to be acquired by the homeland legislative bodies. Clauses 5 and 9 have similar powers to eliminate competitive legislative authority, and finally there is clause 6 which deals with the question of labour bureaux in so far as South-West Africa is concerned. Now, we have no objection to the remaining clauses of the Bill. It is really a matter of debating clauses 1 and 10 and I hope that I have given sufficient reasons to indicate why this side of the House cannot support the Bill at Second Reading.

On Monday night, and tonight again, we have had from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana the usual negative sounds we hear from that side when security legislation is involved. Once again we had the usual hackneyed clichés about the “free society” and the “rule of law”, the usual suggestion, with regard to the security of the country, that this side of the House wants to play the part of an oppressor in regard to the rights and the freedoms of the individual, that we advocate an unjust dispensation in which the freedoms of the individual will be suppressed, and that this legislation implies an inherent threat to this “free society” and the “rule of law”. It is true that in a brighter moment the hon. member tried to sound positive this evening, and that was also spotted at that moment by the hon. member for Potchefstroom. However, in the course of my speech I want to confront the hon. member with what he said on Monday evening, a speech in which no positive note was discernible. If we were to analyse his speech critically—and that, too, he tried to anticipate but, as I shall try to indicate, unsuccessfully—it was in the first instance a motion of no-confidence in the legislative assemblies of the various Bantu peoples. He even conceded that clauses 1 and 10 only furnish these legislative assemblies with legislative powers, legislative powers relating to public order, public security and good management of the country. This legislative power is not just going to be exercised out of the blue by an individual, but will be exercised by a duly constituted Parliament, under the control of persons duly elected under the constitution of each homeland. It will be duly thrashed out in debate in the legislative assemblies and subsequently an Act will be placed on the Statute Book of each homeland. But what does the hon. member say? Without knowing what these legislative assemblies are going to say, without having any indication of what the content of this Act is going to be, he prejudges the issue and insinuates by implication that these Acts which are now being placed on the Statute Book will interfere with the freedom of intercourse, the freedom of the individual and the “rule of law”. Sir, the hon. member’s attempt to anticipate matters and say that he expects us to say this, fools nobody, because he has not made a single statement to contradict what I have just said. He did not indicate to this House why his attitude was by implication a motion of no-confidence in the legislative assemblies. Secondly, the hon. member’s speech bears testimony to naiveté or to a refusal to face the present-day situation. In his speech he concedes that the rule of law is not temporarily suspended in a state of war or, as he calls it, a national emergency, but that there may be measures that are in conflict with the rule of law during such a period. He put it like this—

Is there a state of war in the homelands?

He goes on—

In practical terms this hon. member is telling this House that there must be war before such measures may be taken. The bombs must first fall, there must first be violence and revolt, the corpses must first be seen, before extraordinary measures may be taken. Preventative measures to check war, violence or revolt must not be taken. We must not see the danger a long way off and try to avert a situation of national emergency. We must wait until the crime is committed and then catch and take to court the man who threw the bomb.

Does this Parliament not have the power at the moment to take these steps throughout the whole of South Africa?

But you oppose that, too.

We are engaged in transferring power to the homelands. There was a time when we had all the powers. There will also come a time when we shall give the homelands full independence.

May I put a further question to the hon. member?

Does the hon. member not want to hear my reply first? In this respect we are in a period of transition. This is a further positive step to transfer meaningful powers to the home-ends. It is illuminating that that side of the house begrudges these meaningful powers we want to transfer to the homeland governments. This further underlines the inherent lack of confidence in the homeland government expressed by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The hon. member’s attitude is entirely unrealistic. How can he want to wait for war or for a national state of emergency? We are living today in a world which differs from that of the 19th century, when the rule of law was established in a stable democratic situation and when authors such as Dicey could formulate this for us in a calm and clear manner. We are living today in dangerous times. I want to refer the hon. member to Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Cyprus. I want to ask him to make a survey of the number of coups d’état that have occurred in Africa up to now. I want to ask him to remember what Danny the Red achieved by means of student unrest in France, when he virtually paralysed the economy of France. I want to ask him to take a look at the mother of democracy, England, which is today experiencing a crisis of authority. I want to ask him, too, to read what the Le Grange Commission, on which his party was represented, reported.

He himself was a member of that commission.

I want to ask him to study and analyse the terrorist activities in Southern Africa and then to give me an evaluation of the spirit of the times in which we are living and of the onslaughts being made throughout the world—and that includes South Africa—against democracy, against the rule of law, against the freedoms we stand for. Having done that, he will realize that we are living in a time, the spirit of which necessitates extraordinary measures because we are faced with certain threats. I want to submit for his consideration a better definition of the rule of law than his, and the exceptions to it. I want to give him ex-judge Broome’s definition of the rule of law—

I want to make the statement that the security of the State is in danger in every state in the west. It is in danger in South Africa, too, and we are not going to allow a crisis of authority to arise in South Africa as well through acting hesitantly. This is the situation today, and against this background the Government receives a request from the homlands …

Which one?

The hon. the Minister will tell you. Against this background we receive a request from the homelands requesting the right to do what is necessary because they, too, are concerned about this. They are also concerned about the security of their state. They, too, feel the need to take preventative measures, because they, too, discern certain underground activities. What measures are they asking for? They are asking for measures that will have the effect of safeguarding these very concepts, democracy and the rule of law. That is why this Bill puts before each one of us in this country, the question of what is to be done by a country when its security, its public life, its orderly society, its democratic structure are endangered. What must a State do when the foundations of its stability are threatened by undermining activity, by undemocratic and underground attempts to seize power, by the planning of violence, revolt and public unrest? What must a country do then, but what is more, what must a homeland, still in its infancy, do then as far as democracy is concerned? What must a homeland do when it considers the history of Africa with its record of coups and of destructive violence? What must it do when it looks at the West which, despite its long history and tradition of democracy, is staggering under the effects of its hesitance to maintain authority, law and order in a fair, but firm way? That is the question facing us.

You are stirring up emotions.

I am pleased he hon. member is becoming stirred up. I hope that the hon. member will become stirred up to the extent of seeing the truth of what I am saying. This is the question that faces us: Must a country sit back, in the face of undermining activities, and wait until a crime is committed against the State, or should it take preventative measures?

They are a bunch of hands-uppers.

We on this side of the House …

Order! Which hon. member referred to “hands-uppers”?

I did, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

To us on this side of the House the answer is clear. We have not hesitated to bring such legislation to Parliament nor do we hesitate now to extend these legislative powers to the homelands when they ask for them. If we look at this Bill, we see in it a fine balance between the fact, on the one hand, that we are in earnest in leading the homelands to full independence. It is for that reason that we are giving them more power by way of this legislation. That is why we are giving them meaningful power in order that they, too, may see to their own domestic security and accept responsibility for it. On the other hand, the Bill also proves that we are in earnest in not leaving those territories to their own devices, but that we want to continue to assist them to grow and develop. That is why those clauses to which the hon. member referred to so cursorily, also appear in the Bill, to the effect that we would request authorization for our Government to stand security for loans incurred by the homeland governments. Here I want to take the hon. member to task for saying in his speech that clauses 1 and 10 were the only important matters in this Bill. It is a person with a negative outlook who does not say that it is important that through this Bill the National Party Government is saying: “Go on, develop, borrow money because we will continue to hold your hand along this road of development.” The hon. member said that this was not important. I want to quote his words. What was his summing up of this Bill? He said—

In other words, as far as that hon. member is concerned, the development of the homelands is not important.

Mr. Speaker, I support this Bill in the full confidence that it is a positive Bill and that it constitutes further proof of our confidence in the homeland governments, in the legislative assemblies of the homelands, in the future of the homelands and in the maintenance of law and order and authority in the whole of Southern Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to reply to someone who i has legal training, which is something more than one finds in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. That is probably why we have such terrible, shocking and disgusting legislation before us tonight. With due respect to the hon. the Minister and his Deputies, it is well-known that none of them has legal training.

Do you have legal training?

I have admitted that I have none. I am a farmer as is the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and therefore I think I am as qualified as he is to speak on this subject.

How can you pass judgment on those people if you have no legal training yourself?

I think that hon. member should stand up and make his speech instead of sitting down and making it. I resent some of the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Vereeniging about the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. members on this side of the House. The hon. member said towards the end of his speech that we have no concern for the development of the homelands and that this had no consequence in our approach. He said that this step that is being taken is a step on the road to the development of the homelands. He was referring to clauses 1 and 10 in particular. I would say that the tradition of this House and this Parliament is that of Westminster. I would say that this is one of the last bastions of the Westminster system in Africa. We agree that in Africa one cannot wholly accept and apply the Westminster system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to answer questions at all. The position is that we at the present time in the history of South Africa should not be seen to be departing from the Westminster system. We should not be seen to delegate a power when such delegation is not commensurate with the Westminster system. The hon. member for Vereeniging had a lot to say about the situation in Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus and England with regard to terrorists. The hon. member should realize that these territories, these homelands, to which this law which we are discussing tonight applies, are not yet independent. He must realize that this Parliament, which is still to my knowledge and to the knowledge of the members on this side of the House the sovereign Parliament of South Africa, has all these powers in terms of various laws and can apply them. I do not believe that the time is ripe for such powers as are envisaged in this Bill. We have the powers, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said, under the Unlawful Organizations Act. We have the powers under Proclamation 400, which still applies in the Transkei. We have powers under the Riotous Assemblies Act, which applies to the whole of South Africa. We have the powers under the Affected Organizations Act, to act in the case of organizations receiving money from overseas. We have the powers of banning and house arrest. We have the powers of restriction that apply to Sobukwe at the moment. These powers exist. Why is it necessary to legislate in order to empower another authority and other authorities to have similar powers at the present time in South Africa when we know perfectly well …

Why not?

The hon. member, as a member representing Pretoria and where one of his colleagues has recently vacated his seat to go to the United Nations as South Africa’s ambassador, should speak with more responsibility in this House and for this country.

I believe that this Bill is another little piece of manure on top of the gigantic dung-hill of restrictive legislation that has been placed upon the Statute Book of this country.

Order! The hon. member cannot refer to existing legislation in those terms. He must withdraw the word “dung-hill”.

I withdraw the word, and I abide by your ruling. However, this is another measure placed on the Statute Book in order to confuse the most confused people in South Africa, the lowest echelon of society, the least educated part of society, the Black people.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to say that legislation exists on the Statute Book for the purpose of confusing other people? Surely, this is …

Mr. Speaker, may I explain? I did not refer to the legislation which exists …

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member please give me a chance to complete the sentence?

The hon. member raised a point of order. I give the hon. member for Albany the opportunity to explain what he has said.

Mr. Speaker, I referred to the legislation before us, and not the legislation on the Statute Book. I abided by your ruling and withdrew my previous remarks. I am referring to this legislation. I think it is an additional piece of legislation, and it can confuse people, because it is bad legislation. If one looks at clauses 1 and 10, one sees that a certain Act is amended. In fact, the First Schedule to Act 48 of 1963, as amended by section 4. etc., is amended in clause 1. The preamble, however, states that part B of the First Schedule of the Transkei Constitution Act is to be amended. Clause 1(1) reads further:

Here we have a separate Act: Subsection (2) reads:

This is confusing. I think it is even confusing to a country lawyer. It would probably even be confusing to the hon. member for Pretoria Central if he had to interpret a case in terms of this Bill, because he would not have to look at this legislation only. He would have to look at other Acts as well. This is a bad way of legislating. One finds the same thing repeated in other clauses.

You have to look at two Acts at the same time.

It might be that one will suffer from some optical problem.

Like double vision!

The hon. member for Vereeniging spoke about negative cliehés “in verband met veiligheidswetgewing, asof hierdie wetgewing die ‘rule of law’ en ‘free society’ will kortvat”. These are the words I wrote down during the hon. member’s speech. He is not denying it now. I see he is having a conversation with one of the service officers of the House. Therefore, these words must be correct. Our objection to this measure is not so much that it interferes with the rule of law or with the free society, but the fact that these powers are being given to other authorities in this country. We have objected to such clauses in Bills before in this Parliament. This Parliament has the right to interfere anywhere in South Africa and the hon. member for Potchefstroom, as much as he likes making speeches sitting down, can say as much as he likes, but he knows perfectly well, being a legally trained person, that this Parliament has the right to interfere and to implement anything in these two clauses. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Potchefstroom is not allowed to insinuate that an hon. member is too scared to reply to questions. He must therefore withdraw the insinuation.

With due respect, I said the hon. member did not want to reply to my questions. [Interjections.] However, I am quite prepared to withdraw it.

The hon. member may feel himself quite free to put a question to me. [Interjections.] It seems to me as if the hon. member for Potchefstroom does not want to put a question now.

The hon. member says he is in favour of the development of the Bantu homelands, but this afternoon he voted against the development. Is that not so?

Mr. Speaker, I have never in my life heard such a ridiculous question from an intelligent person. Does this legislation, do these clauses mean development…

Have you read the clauses?

I am talking about clauses 1 and 10. I have given my approval to the other clauses. I am referring to, and my whole speech has been directed towards, clauses 1 and 10.

Do you agree with the other clauses?

I have given my agreement to them. If the hon. member has any objection about what I have to say about clauses 1 and 10, he had better stand outside himself and look at himself again, because as a person who is trained in jurisprudence he should know better than that. This is not a step towards development. In civilized society, as much as we dislike these steps that have sometimes to be taken, nevertheless they are necessary even if they are retrogressive steps. This is a retrogressive step in that this Parliament, which bases itself on the Westminster system, is passing these powers of banning …

May I ask the hon. member a question? Has the hon. member read the other clauses of this Bill?

I have answered that question again and again, namely that I approve of the other clauses of this Bill. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also has told him that we approve of the other clauses. I am referring specifically to clauses 1 and 10 of this Bill. The intelligence of the hon. member must be a little lacking tonight. These are retrogressive steps and we should not pass them … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria Central must contain himself.

These are steps which we should not as a responsible Westminster-type of Government in Southern Africa and in Africa at the present moment in time, pass on to Governments that have not yet become independent. This Parliament, and the Executive of this Parliament, have the powers to exercise all these powers. This is an exercise in Mad Hatterism, but who the Mad Hatter is I do not know or rather do not care to say because if I do, I shall be called to order. It is a crazy concept to place on the Statute Book a provision that these powers may be delegated when this Parliament already has the powers.

Your policy is to share power with them.

Yes. Our policy is to share and delegate powers in an evolutionary manner, in a quiet manner and in a civilized manner. Our policy is not to give immense powers.

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

Mr. Speaker, the thing that amazes me about these two particular clauses is that there are Acts on the Statute Book at the moment that apply to people who do things such as those mentioned in clause 1 (1) and (2) and to organizations as mentioned in clause 10 (1) and (2). We have established a High Court of the Transkei and we have appointed a senior judge as Judge-President of the Transkei. I believe that these provisions are tantamount to an act of no confidence in that High Court that has been established in the Transkei and are probably an act of no confidence in the Judge-President of the Transkei. I believe that there are Acts on the Statute Book of this country which will cover everyone of the matters included in these provisions. I believe that this is bad legislation. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana put our case excellently tonight and I support his opposition to this Bill. I oppose this Bill completely.

Mr. Speaker, however much I admire the capabilities of the hon. member for Albany, I must confess that his effort tonight was certainly not one of his brightest.

What was wrong with it?

Listening to the speech of the hon. member for Albany, one was reminded of the full story when the Sabotage Act was passed in this House in 1962. The same type of argument was used.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, can the hon. member refer to my speech as having reminded him of a sabotage debate?

Order! Would the hon. member for Brakpan explain what he said?

Mr. Speaker, I said that listening to the debate so far reminded one of the type of debate the United Party conducted here when the Sabotage Act was being discussed.

The hon. member may proceed.

Listening to the argument of the hon. members of the Opposition, and particularly of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, the burden of the song they kept on singing was: “When will they ever learn?” To think that at one stage that party had 111 members in the House of Assembly! How many do they have today? What the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said was significant, i.e. that 14 years ago when the Unlawful Organizations Act was passed, they supported it in principle because an emergency existed at the time. Subsequently in their righteousness—what I mean to say is, their often repulsive righteousness—similar measures were …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “repulsive”.

I withdraw it, Sir. Measures such as the Sabotage Act …

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to refrain from using unparliamentary language. It has already become too much of a habit.

I want to make the point that the members of the Opposition subsequently opposed measures such as the Sabotage Act and other similar measures tooth and mail. Each time they did so, they lost ground.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not believe the hon. member is right.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Albany must stop interrupting.

Mr. Speaker, they said that they would support such measures only if there were a crisis. As the hon. member for Vereeniging has already indicated, this measure is being adopted precisely in order to prevent a crisis from arising.

What the hon. members of the Opposition do not bear in mind, what they overlook, is that when the hon. the Minister moved the Second Reading of this measure, he specifically pointed out that the provisions of this amendment Bill and particularly of clauses 1 and 10, were being introduced at the specific request of certain homeland leaders. This the Opposition conveniently passes by.

Do you accept it?

Of course I accept it; it came from certain homeland leaders. But what did this same hon. member for Umhlatuzana say in 1962? It is interesting to note what he said at the time when he was still the hon. young member for Zululaod. I am referring to Hansard, 1962, Vol. 4, col. 6189. That hon. member is accusing us of not conducting negotiations with the homeland leaders. I am quoting what he said at the time—

The same song which the hon. member for Albany was singing a moment ago—

Sir, now those very leaders are asking us to confer these powers on them, and this is being opposed by the United Party.

Which leaders?

Sir, the Minister will reply to that.

Then, Sir, reference was made here for the umpteenth time to the “rule of law”. There is a complete failure to recognize that our well-tried law of procedure and law of evidence rules were formulated at a time and under circumstances which were quite different from those prevailing today. They were intended to protect the ordinary law-abiding citizen against an autocratic ruler. Today the State has to be protected, and protected against subversive activities aimed at the structure of the State itself. The modus operandi of those elements is that they themselves abide by no legal rules and then rely on the State having to abide by a law of procedure and a law of evidence which are inappropriate against such activities and which they know can easily be circumvented. I want to go further, Mr. Speaker. We know that it is extremely difficult in criminal law to distinguish between preparatory acts and acts which proceed directly to attempts. Whatever the theoretical situation may be, we know that in practice it is extremely difficult to determine when a preparatory act, which is not punishable, proceeds and ends and when an attempted act, which is in fact punishable, begins. If the object is therefore to maintain law and order, in other words, to ensure the security of the community, and if one takes certain steps oneself and does not act arbitrarily, one is not contravening the “rule of law”. In other words, Sir, the “rule of law” is not an exact, concrete concept. Learned authorities on constitutional law are even of the opinion that this is not a juridical concept, but is something which should fall under the category of political science. In short, Sir, if one amends or adjusts certain legal rules, one is still acting completely within the cadre of constitutional law. In this regard, allow me to put the following question to the Opposition: What, when all is said and done, is the difference if one suspends the “rule of law” in an emergency or during a war, or makes certain exceptions to it in the public interest? In this debate I should like to refer to what an American writer, J. E. Johnstone, wrote as far back as the forties—

Sir, the principle which is under discussion here has been argued so frequently in this House. It is a principle which is recognized in all civilized countries in which democratic systems of government exist. In the first place, it must simply be accepted that there are powers in operation today which cannot be combated with the ordinary legal processes. It is in fact the practitioners of this political dogma who raise a hue and cry and abuse all the legal instruments at their disposal when they come into conflict with the law.

In the second place, it must be emphasized once again that the objectives of this type of person and organization include the complete overthrow of the existing order. They want to create chaos and anarchy. If there are persons and organizations who in fact have no respect for the “rule of law”, any governmental authority which takes cognizance of the process of subversion, will take drastic steps to safeguard its territory and its people. We find grounds for this even in the judgments of competent and well-known jurists, inter alia, Mr. Justice Snyman, who has already given judgments in this regard. Sir, if one sees that the true foundations on which one’s entire society is based are being threatened, surely one cannot allow the use of the ordinary legal rules against them.

In addition, there is the question of intimidation and other terrorist methods which are applied by these people. They create a fear psychosis in the responsible subject. They create a situation in which the ordinary law-abiding citizen is afraid to lend the authorities any assistance. In this way, proper order and the maintenance of law and order itself is defeated. The ordinary subject is not prepared, under these circumstances, to come forward and offer assistance, for if he were to do so, he is singled out for retaliation. I just want to quote here from a paper what an authority had to say in regard to this same matter on a certain occasion—

Elsewhere—

Then, in conclusion, I want to quote what Sadar Wallabhai Patel had to say when he was defining the Preventive Detention Bill (1950) in India—

Does that position apply in South Africa now?

He goes on to say.

The principle is solely the maintenance of law and order. There should, after all, be unanimity on this score. When one is dealing with the maintenance of one’s most precious possession, then one does not wait until the horse has bolted before one locks the stable door.

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Brakpan in the course of my speech. I do not intend to address him right now. What I have to say follows on what the previous speakers, who dealt largely with sections 1 and 10 of this Bill, had to say. It is, naturally, my intention to support the speakers of my party who have already spoken, in their attitude concerning those clauses.

Why “naturally”?

There is one interesting point I should like to raise. As I understand it, homeland territories and Governments have at the present time the right to legislate extra-territorially, for their own subjects, in certain respects and to certain degrees. I would like to know whether—because from reading this particular document I am not quite sure—it is possible for legislation of the nature contemplated in clauses 1 and 10 of this Bill to be of an extra-territorial nature, relating to organizations or people who are not within the territory of the homelands. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could deal with that point when he discusses the matter. The powers granted, the implications of these powers and the legislation which might possibly be brought into effect, are very wide. These are powers to the homeland Governments to pass legislation in due course. One thing is interesting, particularly with regard to clause 1 relating to the Transkei Constitution Act, and that is that it is clear that these powers do not apply and cannot apply to persons other than Bantu. In other words, a legislative body of the Transkei cannot legislate, say, for an Indian, Coloured or White or for the restriction or banning of such persons. I want to say that we welcome this. This is obviously a correct move. When one has powers of this kind, powers that are inevitable—and we decry the fact that there are powers of this kind—it is entirely necessary to see to it that the powers are restricted as far as possible. On the same principle, why is it that the broad generic term “Bantu” is used? If it is intended that the Transkeian citizens should legislate only for their own citizens, why then by using the generic term “Bantu”, bring into and under the power of the Transkeian legislation people who are Xhosas, people who are from Bophuthatswana, Zulus or people from other territories? If the power does not apply to Coloureds, Indians or Whites, surely if this Bill does nothing else, it should retain its logicality in terms of Government policy.

Let us look again at these specific powers granted. The first power relates to organizations and the prohibition and the banning of such organizations. So, if in due course legislation is placed on the Statue Book and, subsequent to that legislation, in the opinion—because I assume that those words will be put into all legislation—of the Government of the Transkei, an organization’s activities run contrary or pose a threat to law and order or good government, it can then be prohibited, banned or wiped off the face of the earth. This is a very convenient power for any Government to have; it is a very nice power. Let me ask hon. members on the other side of the House a question. Suppose the United Party is on the point of taking power in South Africa. [Interjections.] I am going to ask hon. members a question and I am asking for an answer from the other side of the House.

It is a stupid question.

If that is the position would hon. members on the other side of the House agree with me or disagree with me that the United Party would pose a threat to order and good government in South Africa? Would it?

Of course, yes.

Somebody says “of course”. That being the case, would hon. members use legislation of this sort to stop a United Party Government from coming into power or wouldn’t they?

Yes, Teacher; no, Teacher.

It seems that there is a certain amount of uncertainty among hon. members opposite. Can this House be certain that this type of legislation might not be used in years to come for the very purpose of stifling opposition in the territories concerned, especially oppositions which are threatening to take office? It is a very convenient power. It presents a tremendous temptation.

Are you thinking of Zambia?

That hon. member is talking about Zambia. I shall come back to that in a moment. The second power enables a homeland Government to legislate in order to prohibit Bantu from being members of a particular organization. The third power relates to the actual arbitrary banning or restriction of persons, the very power which has found opposition in this House and elsewhere since it was first mooted. Finally, it is granted the power to gag any Bantu for an unlimited time and thus silence the opposition, if necessary, to the established regime. True, this is merely enabling legislation, but we do not pass enabling legislation like this unless we assume or know that the Governments concerned are going to enact such legislation. This is a factual situation. It is true that these powers are limited and that prior approval of the Minister is required before such powers are exercised. Taking into account this Government’s past record on bannings, what confidence does that limitation give us? It gives us none at all and cold comfort to those who may run foul of the Transkei authorities in years to come. When the epitaph of this Government is written—and may it be soon—if it could leave nothing else behind it, other than the legacy of democracy in homeland territories, it would be remembered with at least a degree of respect if not love. The problem is that this is a Jekyll and Hyde Government. It is a Government that hands to developing territories and authorities the trappings and the uniform of democracy, but at the same time it hands to those people and Governments who have the uniform of democracy, the arsenal of autocracy. That is what this Government is doing. We heard a little earlier a rather derisory comment about Zambia. The Nationalists deride African countries to the north who use authoritarian measures for their own ends …

I merely asked you a question.

… and yet, while deriding such countries, they create the very same machinery for States and Governments in the making in this country, machinery which they need not create because they have de facto control over the areas themselves The Nationalist Party should not abrogate or deny responsibility for these areas. This sort of power should not exist at all. If it does, this sort of power should, until independence, vest in the highest authority which is this sovereign Parliament.

This piece of legislation highlights some of the basic differences between the philosophy of the Nationalist Party and that of the United Party. I talk now, partly in reply to the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Vereeniging, of our attitude on the rule of law. The hon. members for Vereeniging and Brakpan took great pains to tell us that the rule of law, which was created and written many years ago in a quieter society and time, is really a somewhat outdated set of principles. We were told that South Africa is in a state of danger and that this legislation is being brought as a preventive measure to stop the dangers that we know are about to beset us. Yet not many months ago we had manifestos, documents and papers fluttering all over the country telling us that we are the most stable and sound country on the African continent. I believe that it is true that we are in fact a stable country, but then they must not come with the story that we are facing imminent dangers which threaten to beset us. If they wish to introduce legislation of this nature, they must tell us what the dangers are and who they are legislating against. They must tell us what sort of measures they anticipate introducing and what sort of opposition they hope to stifle by that means. The very term “rule of law”—I am referring to the hon. member for Brankpan now—has come to mean different things to different people. To a Fascist, for instance, the rule of law means governing under the guise of legality. It means, roughly, rigid obedience and subservient obedience to laws passed by decree.

What does it mean to Turks?

To such a Fascist it means the total subservience of the individual in the interests of the State. It means, inter alia, restrictions on the liberty of people in the furtherance of the so-called security of the State. This interpretation of the rule of law inevitably leads to arbitrary bannings by the regime of their opponents in the so-called interests of peace. If we look at the other side of the coin, the anarchist or the subversive element, as you may describe him, looks upon the rule of law as a system in which he can undertake any activity without fear of any redress except through or by the most cumbersome machinery. The welfare of his countrymen is to such a subversive person irrelevant, as long as his selfish desires are attained. The true security of the State is of no consequence to such a person. One of the many dilemmas which we, and modern Governments in general, face, is that very often the people who claim the protection of the rule of law most vociferously are those people who refuse to meet the obligations of the individual under the system. Communists, anarchists and subversive elements do not play by the rules, but when things go wrong, they claim the protection of the rules quickly enough.

That is my point.

I know it is the hon. member’s point. But my problem with members on the other side of the House is that South Africa and this Government are losing their sense of balance in regard to this principle. At a time when South Africa is not in a state of emergency, at a time when it is the Government’s bounden duty, in terms of its own policy, to uplift the homelands, to extend to those territories enlightened government, and also in this unique period to foster the creation of a real democracy, the Nationalist Party, instead of doing this, is broadening the application of arbitrary powers, thus allowing the further erosion in South Africa of the benevolent, democratic application of the principle of the rule of law. As I have said, the differences between our two parties are great: Ours is the democratic approach, theirs the autocratic approach.

Ours is the approach of law and order.

No, the autocratic approach. You see, I have problems with hon. members who talk about the rule of law and about Dicey; because when they talk about it, they use the phrase, but none of the members on the other side tell us what they really think the rule of law means. I am not certain whether members on the other side understand what the rule of law means. As I see it, the rule of law means broadly three things:

Firstly, it means that no man shall be punishable, except for a distinct breach of the law. That is the first rule of the rule of law. This time-honoured view is quite compatible in South Africa. It fits in with Roman-Dutch law and English law, and has for many years found application in South Africa, at least to a partial extent. There have been exceptions, particularly in the case of non-Whites, where the principle has been neglected. However, until the advent in South Africa of the rule of the Nationalist Party, the principle of arbitrary restrictions never found root. Under this Government, as is evidenced by the provisions of clauses 1 and 10, arbitrary restrictions are becoming a way of life.

You are a real demonstrator.

The extensive discretionary and arbitrary powers taken on and used, and today being extended …

Order! Which hon. member said “demonstrator”?

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not take it amiss. He used to shout that at me in the Transvaal Provincial Council regularly.

With the same lack of success.

With the same lack of success, Sir. These arbitrary powers are used against its political enemies. They make a mockery of the whole principle. Under a United Party Government this concept would remain very much alive. We cannot go along with clauses 1 and 10 of this Bill, because we do not believe that people should be restricted, banned or gagged before having been convicted of a punishable offence. Here there is a vast difference when you think of the actions of the Government over there. Deportations, namings, bannings and restrictions are all part of the Government’s suppressive arsenal. I think that it is a very sad commentary that these type of weapons are now being broadened and extended to other areas.

The second point, for the benefit of the hon. member for Brakpan, relating to the rule of law is that it means the equal subjection of all classes to ordinary law administered by the ordinary courts. I know that this hypothesis has never really fully applied in South Africa. Many different laws have applied to different people, such as the Native Law of Persons, which has always applied exclusively to Blacks. Then there are the pass laws, the laws relating to land ownership and in other fields the many exceptions granted to the Police Force in the execution of their duty, the short prescription times, etc. We understand that there is a need for differentiation in this way. But in this respect, and in one respect in this Bill, it is only since 1948, since the Nationalists came into power, that we have discarded the aspect relating to the ordinary law administered by the ordinary courts. The Nationalist Party has, as is here obvious, often and regularly sought to by-pass the courts in the furtherance of its political aims. This Bill is an open sesame to pre-independence homeland legislation and with the same result, namely the by-passing of the courts.

Then there is a final point in regard to the rule of law. The third principle forming the basis of the rule of law is that the rules of constitutional law are not the source but the consequence of the rights of individuals, defined and enforced by the courts. In other words, the laws of the country are tailored to the reasonable needs of the individual. Herein lies a very big difference. The Nationalists believe that there can be no security of the individual unless the security of the State is guarded by every means possible. We believe that the security of the State becomes automatic in a society where the individual is secure. Perhaps this is the key to the whole matter. However, if the only way to secure the safety of the State is by this sort of method, and from now on the safety of the homeland territories too is to be secured by negative arbitrary action, then this in time is going to escalate and is going to become an ever-escalating process. By passing these two clauses in this Bill we are transferring and infecting territories other than our own and other authorities with our State security psychosis. That is what we have here. We have a Nationalist Party Sate security psychosis. What they are doing is that they are now infecting other areas with their psychosis. When one has a disease, one tries to isolate it. You do not infect everybody else. The hon. member for Brakpan talks about fighting subversive elements. I want to say that if you want to save South Africa for the future, you will never achieve it through this legislation. You fight it by getting to the root cause of the problems. You fight it by creating viable entities in the homelands, by creating a system in terms of which the people are socially uplifted so that they have an economic future and political expression which will be meaningful. That is how you fight communism. When will the Government learn? You do not fight it with tanks, guns and Saracens. You fight communism with the weapons of democracy and not with the weapons of autocracy. The weapons of democracy are food, political expression, economic upliftment, education, political rights and to get rid of petty apartheid. That is how you fight communism. The argument has been put that all the other homeland Governments have asked for this. I can see hon. members all standing up, singing the same little song. It has been said that by opposing this piece of legislation—and the two hon. members who spoke before me made this point—we are interfering in the development of the homelands; we are interfering in those matters which are their right. The hon. member for Vereeniging says that it is a vote of no confidence in the homelands’ legislative assemblies. This is a serious charge. I think that no sane Government or Opposition would wish to interfere, since our task is to assist, encourage and aid them. It is not a good argument, because the Nationalist Party, in raising this argument have never in the past had qualms about interfering in the affairs of the homeland territories. They have always had a very big hand in the affairs of the homelands. They have told us that the development of the homelands will be a gradual development. The Nationalist Party has not agreed to every request put by the homeland Governments in the past, they have not given them every legislative power they have requested, they have not given them all the land they want, they have not given them all the finance that is required, they have not allowed all the industries to be placed inside the homelands instead of on an agency basis until recently. The Nationalist Party has never in the past hesitated to deny requests from the homeland Governments. What nonsense to come and tell us now that because we do not agree with this particular measure we are interfering in the affairs of the Transkei Government. What absolute nonsense. Surely, until independence is declared, this Nationalist Party has de jure and de facto power over the territories concerned. These territories and the Government of the territories in the final resort remain in the hands of this sovereign Parliament. Our task is to assist these Governments to build viable States and surely it is our task to assist with a steadily-paced transfer of power. It does not mean the duty to assist and encourage Governments in the making, to descend into the realms of autocracy. It does not mean that at all. It is our right in terms of the legislation and in terms of the control exercised over the whole of South Africa to control the pace of development. We say in any event that this is not a case of development.

We talked about consultation. We are told that this has been asked for. Do hon. members know what the people in these areas say? I want to quote from The Star of 15 August-

That was his reaction and that was what he said. I quote further—

That is the view, Mr. Speaker, of the leaders of the Opposition of the homelands concerned. That is also the view of the official Opposition on this side of the House. We say, if you wish to develop the homelands, use the weapons of democracy. Uplift them, invest money, build the infrastructure and assist in every way possible, but do not hand over to governments in the making legislation which is retrogressive and which in years to come could lead to the temptation to deny to the peoples of those territories democracy which is their right.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the hon. member for Sand-ton is under great tension. According to what I have heard it seems that he is walking around with a letter in his pocket. I cannot believe that he still has that letter in his pocket. I am saying this because he is far too light for that. He floats about in midair, and I therefore do not want to give any further attention to what he said; it was far too confused.

What I did in fact deduce concerning the standpoint of the official Opposition in regard to this legislation I did not hear from the hon. member for Sandton but from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The inference I draw from it, is that I may not dip my cattle to rid them of ticks. I must wait until they fall ill, and then I must inject them to save their lives. I am really curious to hear what the hon. members of the Progressive Party have to say about it. I have a sneaking suspicion that their standpoint is going to be that I may not dip and that I may not inject the cattle either.

It is clear that the expression “rule of law” or “supremacy of the law”, has caused great confusion in the past. The concept is frequently used emotionally and this is in fact what the hon. member for Sandton also said. The meaning of those words depends on the meaning the speaker wishes to attach to them. The concept “rule of law” has an interesting quality. Everyone who wishes to interpret the concept, accept that it is a good thing, that it exhibits a good quality such as courage or justice. Divergent meanings are attached to these words, as the hon. member for Sandton also mentioned. Only recently I came across seven different meanings in authoritative writings. When reference is being made to personal rights there is a measure of consensus in this respect, viz. that it means that an accused shall have the right to deny his guilt in open court and to defend himself by means of legal aid. This general principle is staunchly endorsed and applied in South Africa. The Republic of South Africa is a democratic state. The object of democracy, which hon. members sometimes overlook, is to create circumstances in which each individual can achieve the greatest measure of welfare. However, the individual cannot be allowed to acquire for himself in a selfish way the greatest measure of welfare at the expense of the common welfare. In order to achieve the object of democracy it is therefore necessary for the individual to exercise his specific rights and liberties in such a way that it is not to the detriment of State security. Now the question arises to what extent the State is compelled to intervene to protect the welfare of the community. There is always a difference of opinion in this regard. This is the reason why so many divergent interpretations are given to the concept of “rule of law”. Some people place emphasis on the maintenance of law and order. Other interpreters mean by this preference to fixed rules such a “Bill of Rights” in a constitution Act. This concept is also identified with democracy. The democracy with which this concept is identified, is the Westminster model, as the hon. member for Albany termed it. It is also said that the “rule of law” can only be maintained in a country with a democratic form of government, but it is not as simple as this either. For example, when a dictatorship changes and a democracy is introduced, that does not inevitably solve the problem of personal freedom, for suppression can be exercised by one, two or by a majority. As far as this matter is concerned, the hon. members of the Opposition will probably be inclined to agree with me. Suppression by a majority actually constitutes a greater danger than any of the other kinds of suppression. The power of public opinion in a democracy usually suppresses the opinion of the dissidents in its midst to a greater extent than a dictator can do by means of physical methods. When intervention in the rights and freedom of individuals is referred to now, there is a tendency to refer exclusively to democracy as this concept is understood in the Western world. I think, however, that no investigation in this regard should stop there. A wider investigation is necessary. In particular it is certainly necessary today to consider what is happening on the continent of Africa. What are the rights and the privileges of the people on the continent of Africa? What systems of Government do they have? I am now going to deal briefly with these countries, not in order to level criticism at these countries, but only to carry out this investigation which is now taking place in this House properly and completely. While these African countries were fighting for independence, most of the African leaders recognized democracy and expressed the desire to maintain democratic principles. Nigeria and Ghana in particular, two former British colonies, were held up as the living proof of the success with which the democracy of the West had been transplanted to Africa. Dr. Azikiwe, the Governor-General and subsequently President of Nigeria, had this to say in 1959—