I move— That the Bill be now read a second time.

In introducing this Bill, the General Law Amendment Bill of 1963, I am doing so well realizing that the Government is asking Parliament thereby to give it certain unusual powers. I do so also well realizing that those powers may perhaps be described as far-reaching. As the responsibility rests upon me to introduce this Bill and to ask for those powers on behalf of the Government, I am doing so fully realizing the responsibility that rests not only upon the shoulders of the Government, but more particularly on my own shoulders because I am the mouthpiece of the Government in that regard. It is a responsibility that any Government or any person takes upon himself to come to Parliament to ask for such powers. I believe there can be no misunderstanding between us about that. Not only is it a responsibility one has to bear, but one also does so realizing that any abuse of those powers one is asking for, any abuse in the exercise of those powers could in practice lead to the fact—and we have had examples in our political history where in fact it had led to that—that the person who had to handle those powers, or the Government which had asked for them, was the sufferer.

This matter which has led to the introduction of this Bill and to the request for the powers contained in the Bill, with which I shall deal later, has a long history. It is not a matter that arose only yesterday or the day before. It is not a matter that arose during the past 14 years while this Government has been in power. It is a matter with which all previous Governments from the Botha Government to the present Government was concerned in one form or another. So the matter has a long history. What is the background? In dealing with the background I should like to put it very plainly, and I shall be grateful if hon. members will understand it thus, that I do not propose in the time at my disposal to deal again with the background history I gave last year and which I supplemented during the discussion of my policy motion in the Senate, where I dealt fully with this aspect of the matter. Nor do I propose repeating what has been put to the House so strikingly by the hon. the Prime Minister in the course of the debate on his Vote. So where I give the background history, it may perhaps appear defective if one does not see it together with and read it in conjunction with what has already been said in this connection. So I merely, from the nature of the matter, wish to add to what has already been said in connection with these matters just recently. It must be very clearly understood that if we wish to appreciate this problem we have to deal with, and which this legislation now seeks to deal with in a more effective manner, we must understand clearly that the background of it lies in this cold war that has come to our doorstep; that everywhere and always the communist agitator and communistic activities are to be found in the background. When we see this Bill particularly against the background of what is happening in Africa and even what has happened in Southern Africa, one should never forget that the background of these things is to a large extent the franchise. But in the same way that here was a time in our history when a President of a Republic had to say to Milner at Bloemfontein “it is not the franchise you want; it is my country”, equally certainly that period has also dawned in our own history. If we understand these things, and if we understand the background against which it is happening, we may also with great justification say to these people who are responsible for this state of affairs: “It is not the franchise you want; it is my country you want.”

Let us make no mistake. I am perhaps in a position to understand this better than hon. members because these documents come before me daily. I have insight into these things which hon. members for understandable reasons do not have. I am acutely aware that the basis of everything that is happening, that the impetus behind these things that are happening, is to be found in the fact that there are people in South Africa, in Southern Africa and in the world, who hold the view that the White man has no place here in South Africa; that he is not only a trespasser here, but that he is a trespasser who has to be removed as soon as possible. That appears from the documents that come before me and I shall produce the proof. If there is one thing that is very clear if one sees these occurrences in their proper perspective, it is this: Because the basis of this conflict is a conflict against the White man, it is immaterial what political policy is necessarily being applied in a country. Kenya pursued a policy of equality in every respect, and faithfully carried out that policy. That did not stop the Mau-Mau from perpetrating the most horrible murders perhaps known in world history. Angola pursues an official policy of assimilation. That did not prevent 2,000 White people, according to Press reports, dying under horrible circumstances. The Federation pursued a policy of “partnership”. That did not prevent the occurrence of more mis-demeanours in the Federation than in the Republic of South Africa. The Republic of South Africa pursues a policy of apartheid. Here it also occurred.

What then is the background of these two movements in South Africa which are responsible for the Government coming to Parliament in this manner? The African National Congress was founded in 1912. Their objects, as announced by it at the time, were fourfold: (1) To unite all Bantu in the Union of South Africa (as it was at the time), the Protectorates and South West Africa; (2) to promote and to protect the interests of the Bantu; (3) to oppose all discriminatory legislation; and (4) to strive for the franchise for all people above the age of 18 years, irrespective of race, colour or sex. Therefore that principle to which I have referred is not a new one; it is a principle contained in the original deed of establishment of 1912. Nor are difficulties and problems in connection with it new. Older members, as children in those days, will remember the I.C.U. and Kadali, when Ballinger was his private secretary.

At the time of the establishment of this African National Congress communists and Communism had of course not yet become as prominent as they became later on. But as this movement grew and as Communism developed in the world and took shape, Communism also seeped into this movement. Hon. members must understand very well that many of the files I am working with to-day date from the ’twenties; others from the ’thirties; others from the ’forties when hon. members opposite were in power. So the picture has been built up from the files which are in my possession. In 1936 particularly a radical change occurred in the affairs of the A.N.C. when one J. B. Marks—I think all hon. members know him as one of the communist agitators of the past—became the Secretary-General of the African National Congress. From that moment Communism took over the African National Congress hand over hand and made it its tool. In 1947—I get this from the files of those times when this Government was not in power—there were no fewer than seven communists on the Executive Committee of the A.N.C. In 1949 we find that Moses Kotane, the Secretary-General of the Communist Party, was put on the National Executive Committee of the A.N.C. So there were communists not only within the A.N.C., but they now publicly proceeded to create a link between the Communist Party on the one hand and the A.N.C. on the other. Of course, as hon. members are aware, the A.N.C. is a Bantu organization. But parallel with this Bantu organization, the other communist organizations, communist-controlled organizations or communist-inspired organizations grew and came to the fore. There was, so far as the Indians were concerned, the Indian National Congress. There was the South African Coloured People’s Organization. And after the banning of the Communist Party there was the Congress of Democrats which, as is universally admitted, also by the Opposition, was the continuation of the Communist Party in South Africa. All these various groups together, Whites, Indians, Coloureds and Bantu, in some cases out-and-out communistic, in some cases communist-inspired, constituted the Congress Alliance. The Congress Alliance consisted (and the communists saw to that) of the leading communists or their fellow-travellers so that they gained absolute control over all these organizations. No wonder then that all these organizations came together at Kliptown in Johannesburg on 25 and 26 June 1955, and drafted the well-known “Freedom Charter”; the Freedom Charter which is nothing else but the communistic blueprint for Southern Africa.

Amongst themselves there was peace between these groups. They were quite satisfied to co-operate with one another on the basis on which they achieved co-operation in order to achieve the same objects. But gradually quarrels and rows ensued within the African National Congress, not quarrels and rows about the ultimate object of everything, not quarrels and rows about what they ultimately wished to bring about in South Africa, but quarrels and rows among themselves on the one hand in consequence of jealousy, and on the other hand as a result of the charge made by certain A.N.C. members against others that White Communism had gained too strong a hold on the movement and was exercising too much influence upon it. That is why there was the clash between Sobukwe on the one hand and the A.N.C. leaders Mandella, Nokwe, Tambo and Luthuli on the other hand. Sobukwe and his followers adopted the stand-point that they were no longer prepared to associate themselves with the A.N.C. because they believed that too much White communistic influence had infiltrated into that organization, and also because they believed that action should be taken more expeditiously than the programme thus far had been. That is why they broke away in 1959 and established the Pan African Congress.

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that when the Congress Alliance met at Kliptown in June 1955 another body also was present there, a body which professes that it is not communistic, and some of its members in fact are not communists; I am assuming that the majority of its members are not communists, and that was the Liberal Party. They also were present at this conglomeration to which I have referred. Hon. members who do not know the history may have an idea that these stirrings and incidents that happened, happened only yesterday or the day before; that it is merely the result of my actions or the actions of the Government, or whatever it may be. I say, Mr. Speaker, that these things have a long history, such a long history that the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the American Congress gave instructions, before this Government came into power, that there should be an inquiry into the activities of the leading communists and how they are linked together outside Soviet Russia. That Committee completed its work and reported to Congress early in 1949. I have the official document as submitted to Congress and as it was released here. It is interesting to note that this was before the Suppression of Communism Act was passed in 1950. It is interesting to note that the names and the biography of each one of them is set forth in that document. They had to compile a list and eventually they compiled this list, a list consisting of 506 names of people, people whom they called the most important communist leaders in the world outside Soviet Russia—506 dangerous people. It is interesting to note that 39 names are given for France, and 14 for the small South Africa. The findings of this Committee are interesting, viz.—

I may refer to it now, for the matter has been disposed of. During the past few days a man called Masondo, if my memory serves me correctly, received 12 years for sabotage.

He was a lecturer at a university college at the age of 26 years. He can never plead that he did not have chances; at 26 years of age he was a lecturer at a university college and he had every opportunity for advancement. He could have become a professor, which he could never have become under other circumstances. Yet he committed this crime.

I wish to refer to some of the names. Some of them have died; some of them are still very much in the picture which this Committee found to exist in South Africa. Lionel Bernstein: he is one of the people who have been placed under very severe restrictions in Johannesburg. Brian Bunting: another man who has been placed under restraint. Fred Carneson: a man who has been placed under very severe restrictions by me. Dr. Dadoo: who has fled and is somewhere overseas at present. Michael Harmel: a man who has not worked throughout the past 20 years, but who is living in more comfortable circumstances that many of us in this House. His name was mentioned at that time already as one of the leading communists. Moses Kotane: leader of the African National Congress and of the Communist Party. Harry Naidoo: a person against whom we also had to take steps. Ponen: against whom we had to act. Then I refer here to one person, merely to bring the argument into focus clearly, Betty Sachs: she became very ill and to the best of my knowledge she has died. Her description, according to this Committee, is as follows—

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that there was a strike that had a bloody end in 1946. Hon. members from the Rand are aware of it. That strike of 1946 very clearly showed that it had been organized by the communists of that time, and some of them are still the communists of to-day. Now people tell me that it is an easy matter to bring these people before the courts and to prosecute them. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that that case which was brought against those people lasted from 1946 to 1947, and that ultimately nothing came of it? Nothing came of it, not because the Government of the day was unwilling to act, but nothing came of it because these people carry on in a way in which normal people do not carry on; because they do not play the game according to the rules; because they expect others to observe the Queensberry rules, but they do not allow themselves to be bound by any rules whatsoever. Those same people who were named at that time are still in our midst at the present time and it was necessary to take steps against them.

Another aspect of the background against which we have to see these things is this. Hon. members will recall that last year, when I introduced that Bill, I told them that these people regard the year 1963 as the decisive year, as the year in which there would be committed not only acts of violence and crime, but in fact as the year in which there was to be a take-over by these elements. So we may not see this problem otherwise than against the background of 1963. I know that when I say this, there are members who are sceptical about it; members who think that this is merely my story because I desire to have my Bill passed by Parliament, or for whatever other reason I may be saying this. I refer hon. members to the report of the hon. Mr. Justice Diemont with reference to the Langa riots and his findings in connection with those disturbances. The very first finding of the hon. Judge is this (page 125)—

That is the finding of the hon. Mr. Justice Diemont. In that regard I refer hon. members to an annexure to this report which the hon. Mr. Justice Diemont deemed necessary to bring to the attention of us, as representatives of the people. Here is an appeal by Sobukwe—

I could quote more from his appeal, but I think this is sufficient.

Mr. Speaker, I also refer to the report of the hon. Mr. Justice Wessels with reference to the Sharpeville riots. A statement made by the same person, namely Sobukwe, in court is given as an annexure—

He continues in another document, and says this—

That was what was in issue at that time—

I say that one therefore cannot ignore that date, 1963 because that date is not only the date set by the P.A.C.; tha date also was the date set by the A.N.C. at all times. For, note carefully, although there has been a schism amongst their members, the ultimate objective is still the same always, although they may differ as to the method at the present time. The method of the P.A.C. is the method of violence, the method of murder out and out, as we have already seen in South Africa also. The A.N.C.’s method is a method they describe as a method of greater finesse; it is a method of carefully planned sabotage. In the same way that the Poqo movement represents that aspect of the P.A.C., so also the movement Mkontowe Weziwe represents the A.N.C. on this front. Between them there is rivalry as to who will first be able to achieve these things that they have set themselves as their ultimate objective.

Therefore I say to hon. members that we should not merely be obsessed on the one hand only by the Poqo movement and lose sight of the others. I want to give hon. members the assurance that the police also are very mindful of that and that they very definitely are watching both; not only are watching both, but as I shall show later, progress has been made although not to the same extent but approximately to the same extent, in combating both movements.

We also have to bear in mind that we are not dealing with a Black movement, but that we are at all times dealing with movements backed by Whites and where Whites are the propelling force. Hon. members will recall that before the Sabotage Act was passed Whites were sent to gaol for three years. There was the person in Port Elizabeth who was imprisoned because he had a sabotage school where he trained Bantu in acts of sabotage, and Turok because he was playing around with bombs. Just as there were Whites in the past, so also there are White men and women behind this movement to-day. It is a great pity that some cases are sub judice otherwise I would have been in a position to furnish much more information in this connection.

All of us are aware, and therefore I do not wish to bore hon. members with a repetition of it, that sabotage has been committed and that murders and incidents have occurred. It is true that they are very much overdue with their programme as a result of occurrences elsewhere in Africa. Hon. members will recall what I said last year and that I do not wish to be wise after the event now. I said that they would not accomplish it but that they might be stubborn enough to try it. Hon. members will recall those words of mine. I could say that because I had had information in connection with these things, and therefore knew better. You might not have believed me, but to-day we know it was so.

Now three questions necessarily arise in regard to that question. I ask for powers on behalf of the Government in the past, and I am now again asking for further powers. I am not apologizing for that because here I am concerned with a movement that is mobile, that does not pursue one pattern of action, but which takes this course to-day and tomorrow applies that strategy, and when one is dealing with such a movement which is reckless, it necessarily follows that from time to time we have to adopt other measures and have to ask for other powers in order to combat that movement effectively. But you may rightly ask me: Has the Government carried out its duty in this regard by means of the powers it had at its disposal? I do not wish to defend myself here to-day in respect of that matter. I am very grateful that I can stand here to-day knowing that I need not defend myself. I had to defend myself in the course of this Session when I moved my policy motion in the Senate, and I moved my policy motion there and I dealt very fully and at length with this aspect of the matter and I furnished the particulars, and I am very thankful to know that in Col. 2508 (Afrikaans) of the Senate Hansard there is recorded in reply to a direct question of mine to the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Senator Conradie—

Therefore I need not defend myself. I can therefore stand before this House knowing— and I am convinced that hon. members will share my point of view—that the people outside believe that the Government has done its duty, knowing that those sitting on my side of the House are under the impression that the Government has done its duty and knowing that there is an admission by the Leader of the Opposition in the Other Place that the Government has done its duty. So I do not have to defend myself in this regard.

The principles underlying this Bill, some of them, the principle of administrative action under certain circumstances for instance, were debated at length last year, and I do not wish to debate that principle again. However, I also know that as regards that principle, I also have the support of the hon. members of the United Party.

When we come to the third aspect, viz. whether the Government and more particularly I, who have to act as the mouthpiece of the Government and as its instrument, abused those powers—I said at the outset in what a serious light I regard this—I am very thankful to know that save in two cases the charge has never been made against the Government and against me that we have abused our powers. There was the statement that I abused my powers in respect of Duncan. I need not argue that point further to-day. It was said that my predecessor abused his powers as regards Luthuli. After the appearance of Luthuli’s book “Let my People Go” I need not answer any longer.

Whilst dealing with this aspect as to whether the Government has done its duty, I should like to point out that hon. members on my side of the House as well as hon. members opposite, have the right to ask me what the position is now and what steps we took in recent times. I have to account to you. During the discussion of my policy motion in the Other Place I furnished figures. I should like to supplement those figures and bring them up to date on this occasion. Let me say at once in this connection that when I quote these figures, I wish to contradict emphatically once again the wilful lie spread by these people, namely that the South African Police played any role in the action taken by the British Police in Maseru in connection with Leballo’s office. The British Government has officially denied it; I have officially denied it and there simply is no such thing. It is a wilful lie these people have broadcast to the world, and this lie is still being persisted with. I should also like to emphasize this—I do not wish to comment upon it, how difficult it may be not to do so, and how great the temptation may be to do so—that I merely wish to state the bare fact here that I read in the newspapers that on that occasion a list of members containing 10,000 signatures was found. I have not received that list of names, and the South African Police have not received it. I am making no comment other than to state very clearly that the British statement in this connection also is correct, and that such a list of members of 10,000 names has not been supplied to us.

Do you not exchange information?

Perhaps I may be speaking out of turn, but I do not wish to evade the question of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. This information is regarded as being political information.

Ought we not to help each other?

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks the question, I should like to say very clearly that this Government and this side of the House at all times wish to help and are available at all times—and without having consulted the Cabinet or the Prime Minister in this connection, I now wish to take it upon myself to state here, on behalf of the Government, that this Government will not permit organizations to develop in our country which are aimed at, and which organize against the continued existence of friendly countries beyond our borders.

I come to these figures, I know accusations were made against me, were based upon the fact that people did not have the information, that we did not do what was necessary. As I have said, I furnished the figures to the Senate. I received a testimonial there that the Government and I had done our duty. Since the Sabotage Act was passed by this House last year, 23 cases have been disposed of, and 90 persons were convicted. At the moment there are pending in our courts 20 cases in which altogether 166 accused persons are involved. Since this information was compiled, some of those cases have been disposed of, during the last day or two. Altogether therefore there were 2,294 accused persons who were arraigned under that Act. As a result of the Poqo activities there were 26 cases where the charge was murder which was committed by these murder gangs; there were 344 accused persons involved in the 26 cases; 124 have already been convicted and 77 more have been committed for trial; 17 have been convicted of attempted murder; two are still being investigated in respect of murder and five in respect of attempted murder. As regards the P.A.C.-Poqo position, to which we shall revert later when we shall deal with the Snyman Report, there the position is that in 92 cases there were prosecutions in which 259 accused persons were involved. At the moment there are pending in our courts (that is to say, when these figures were compiled), 894 cases in which a total number of 1,155 accused persons are involved. Since these figures were compiled, 200 or 300 more have been added. So if hon. members ask what the factual position is at the moment in respect of these Poqo activities, then the position is that this organizaion was organized in 16 divisions which were spread over the Republic, and arrests of their leaders have been made during recent months, and during the past weeks in particular, in all 16 divisions. I am able to tell the hon. House to-day that the police have reason to believe that as a result of their action they have completely crippled that movement. Let us make no mistake. We, as we are sitting in this House, each one of us, irrespective of what party we belong to, have much reason to be very thankful to the S.A. Police for their actions. They have acted particularly in recent times, and it was not blazoned abroad. They did so in a way that commanded my admiration and my respect, and I believe also that of every member of this House. I am not suggesting by that that the movement has been exterminated. But I do have the right to say that this movement has been crippled to a very great extent, if it has not been exterminated. Only the future will show us with any degree of certainty to what extent this operation has succeeded in exterminating completely this canker from our national life. But the fact that we have come so far, and that I am able to report this progress to the House, should not create an impression among us at all that everything is over, and hon. members on the other hand must not infer from that, as the hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly emphasized, and as I also have said on the occasions when I could do so, that there is reason for panic. There is reason to be concerned; there is reason for being on the alert, and it would be foolish if we were not. I have to account to you because I am in charge of the Department, and I can tell you candidly that not only I believe that the police have performed a particularly fine task, but I believe also that the police will continue to perform that task.

But, and here we must understand each other very clearly, we expect, and we have the right to expect it because it is their duty, that the police will produce certain results, that they must solve this problem and must exterminate this canker, but please do not let us forget that the police are fighting with obsolete weapons—obsolete in the sense that they are bound to rules and laws that have not been designed for a situation such as this, but which were designed for quite a different situation which applies in peacetime, a situation which was concerned with disturbances that occurred hundreds of years ago, which perhaps occurred when our common law was evolved, but on an entirely different level and with entirely different methods. If therefore I come to hon. members and ask for other measures, then I am not doing so merely for the sake of asking for it, and I am not asking it for myself either but I am asking it for the police who are called upon, and from whom we expect, to solve this problem. As far as I am concerned, I have publicly promised the police on the occasion of their 50 years’ anniversary parade, that as far as this Government is concerned, we shall not send them into this conflict with their bare hands. That is then the position in respect of this matter, and that is the background of it.

If hon. members were to say to me now that this legislation, like the other legislation, is far-reaching, then I will agree with them at once. It is drastic. But I should like to tell you also that this Government is not the only Government which has been faced with such a situation. Other Governments in South Africa—we know our history—were faced with similar or almost similar problems. The British Government also has been faced with such a problem during its existence, but the British Government was in the very much easier position than ours in that it had to deal with White people, with its own people, and if hon. members tell me that this legislation of mine is drastic, then I say that it is not as drastic as the legislation placed on the Statute Book by the British Government in 1922 when they had to deal with the Irish rebellion. And do not tell me now that this legislation was simply placed on the Statute Book in 1922. It has been applied throughout the years and as far as I was able to ascertain, it was used as late as 1961, this legislation of 1922. I refer to correspondence that was carried on in a certain newspaper, the Rhodesian Herald, as far back as 14 November last year, in which certain things were said about this legislation. I have to admit candidly that I cannot vouch for the truth of it, but I found it in that newspaper, and I cannot check it. I am giving it exactly as I found it in that paper, namely that under that legislation of the British Parliament—

I am prepared to say to hon. members that if they are not prepared to grant me this legislation before us now, if they do not grant the police this legislation, then I am prepared to give away gratis all the legislation in respect of this matter placed on the Statute Book by us since 1950, in exchange for one section of the British Act of 1922. Because do hon. members know what the British did when they were faced with a similar situation? They suspended the entire existing law. I quote the section of the Act relating to it. I am referring here to Halsbury, page 168, Section 1—

All these things are suspended, and it merely provides that as much care as possible should be taken not to go too far with it. Then it continues, and I quote Section 2 relating to it—

In other words, he is given a completely free hand to act by regulation as it suits him—

I say it is the essence of this section that the normal operation of the law was suspended. It is a short Act.

Was it drafted before or after the 1922 treaty?

Before it, to the best of my knowledge. But it was made for Northern Ireland and it still applies in Northern Ireland, and I have ascertained that it was applied in Northern Ireland until 1961 at least. It is a short Act which together with its title consists of only 13 small paragraphs.

If you tell me that my legislation is drastic, then I repeat that I am prepared to exchange this and all the previous legislation for only this one paragraph of the British Act that has been applied up to 1961 still.

I regret that I have already been so long and I do not propose to keep hon. members very much longer, but I now come to the legislation itself, and you will permit me to deal briefly with the principles (without going into details) of the legislation. I should like to apologize to hon. members for the fact that circumstances over which none of us had any control, resulted in their perhaps having not had the legislation in their hands for as long as they would have liked. I should like to offer as an excuse that on the one hand this legislation gives expression to the recommendation of the Snyman Commission which we have had before us a long time, and on the other hand that in the course of time I have made a statement in respect of almost every principle contained in this Bill (there may be one or two I have not mentioned) to which statements prominence has been given in the Press from time to time. So where I am offering this excuse, I am doing so with the knowledge that hon. members are aware of most of the principles contained in this Bill.

The first principle concerns bail. Hon. members find this in Clause 1 of the Bill. Hon. members are aware that the magistrate is obliged to grant bail to an accused person (a) when he goes on appeal to a higher court and (b) when his case goes on review. Even if the magistrate were aware of the fact that this person is going to abscond, that he will not serve his sentence, that magistrate has no discretion. We saw this in the recent case of Sisulu where the magistrate originally refused bail and the Supreme Court quite rightly compelled him to grant bail. In passing I am merely pointing out to hon. members that the magistrate in that case fixed the exceptionally high amount of R 6,000 as bail, and it was paid in cash by Sisulu’s friends within a quarter of an hour after the amount had been fixed. I wonder which one of us has such good friends, if we were to get into trouble, as to find such an amount at such short notice. I do not wish to deprive the courts of their discretion. I merely wish to give the magistrate the discretion to refuse bail when he deems it necessary, and I have reason to believe that there is not a single hon. member who will quarrel with me because I am doing so. The magistrate may then also, as hon. members will find, add certain conditions when he releases the person on bail. But I think it is fit and proper that magistrates should have this power, and I think it is fit and proper that these subversive elements should understand that bail will in future not be a right, but a privilege which it will be within the discretion of our courts to grant or to refuse.

Clause 2 of this Bill is a consequential amendment and therefore I need not go into it.

Clause 3 of the Bill relates to the definition of “place”. Now I am aware that as it stands here it sounds very funny, but those are the ways and methods of the legal draftsmen. Here a definition of “place” is given, and it flows from the fact, and hon. members must bear this in mind, that the Cape Court and the Full Bench of the Transvaal have held that the old definition is a valid one and that action in connection with it was in order, but in spite of the two court decisions (and they are the only two in my favour) I should like to state very clearly in this new definition what Parliament means by it. That is why it is said here—

Now if a place is not a place hereafter, it will not be my fault! Before hon. members perhaps ask me this question: “But do you now want to restrict a person to a room or to a vessel or to an office or to a shop or to an aircraft or a vehicle?” I should like to say this: No, but the definition has to be like this, because if we make a study of the 1950 Act, we find that the word “place” plays a role in respect of two matters. It plays a role in so far as the Minister is empowered to say to a certain individual: You have to stay at this place; you may not remove yourself from this place. That is what is popularly called “house arrest” or “24 hour” or “eight hour” arrest or whatsoever one may wish to call it. That is the one side of the matter, that you can tell a man that he has to remain at a certain place. The other side of the matter is that you must be able to say to a man: You may not be at a certain place. You must be able to say to a man: “You may not board a ship,” or “You may not board an aircraft or a vessel”; “You may not enter this office or that building or that shop.” If hon. members were to ask me whether that is necessary, I shall tell them that it has definitely been found to be necessary in practice. We have applied it with good results, and there will be court cases from which hon. members will be able to understand better how necessary it is that it should be inserted in the principal Act.

Then we come to Clause 4, This is a long clause and it has been drafted in a complicated manner. I appreciate again that the principle of this is drastic. The principle is nothing more nor less than that the Minister is given the right further to detain a person—that is to say, in respect of a person only who is serving a term of imprisonment, and not just any person, and this does not apply to every person serving a prison sentence either but only to certain persons. It is not just every kind of imprisonment, but imprisonment under the laws referred to in this clause; in other words, it is imprisonment that is concerned with the security of the state. It does not relate to imprisonment in respect of any other crime. Then the Minister may cause such person to be detained in custody for a longer period. I want to tell hon. members why we are inserting this clause. We may find it necessary. Hon. members are as aware as I am that Sobukwe will have served his sentence on 3 May and if hon. members have read their newspapers, they will know as well as I do that he was firstly the leader of the P.A.C., and I can tell hon. members there has been no change of heart in him during the time he has not been in our midst. I want to put it to hon. members candidly, so that they may place themselves in my position. If the Government—and the Government has to consider this matter—comes to the conclusion, having regard to the circumstances as they have developed, and the facts as exposed in the Snyman Report, that it would be failing in its duty to the peaceful citizenry if it were to set this man free, this clause will be used to keep him there longer. Sir, I know it is challengeable. I know the principle is that here is a man who has served his sentence, but having regard to the circumstances, the Government may decide that it may be necessary for the security of the state to do so. For here we are dealing with a person—let me say this—who has a strong, magnetic personality, a person who can organize, a person who feels that he has a vocation to perform this task, well knowing what methods will be applied, as I have told the House earlier. That is the principle of Clause 4.

The principle of Clause 5 deals with persons who overseas make public appeals to Governments, bodies or organization to use force against South Africa. Let me put it very clearly to hon. members that anybody may do so, should he wish to be so unpatriotic as to besmirch his fatherland here and abroad, but I think hon. members will agree with me that nobody should have the right to do so. If he does so within the jurisdiction of our courts, we can indict him, but nobody ought to have the right to appeal in a foreign country to foreign authorities to perpetrate armed aggression against South Africa. And if a person does that, he ought to be liable to punishment. I have been advised by the Attorneys-General that this is not a punishable offence and that is why I am introducing the clause to make it a punishable offence for a person to advocate the use of force of arms against his own country. It does not concern criticism, but it concerns the use of arms against the fatherland.

But there is another aspect of the matter which is more important, and that is the second part of this clause. It deals with persons from the Republic who proceed abroad to be trained as saboteurs. Hon. members will find that in (b)ter of Clause 5. Now I can tell hon. members the modus operandi is as follows. They slip out of the Republic by various routes. They meet in a camp just outside Dar-es-Salaam. There they are provided with travel documents, officially, by the Government of Tanganyika. With those travel documents they then proceed to Addis Ababa and some remain in Ethiopia while others go to Egypt and some to Ghana and there they are trained as saboteurs in sabotage camps. [Interjection.] Yes, the hon. member may very well ask whether that is the thanks South Africa deserves from Ethiopia. Then they are trained as saboteurs, and they return to South Africa. Now I want to tell hon. members candidly what my problem is. I can prove to the Court that he comes from this country. I can prove that he departed unlawfully from the country. I can prove to the court that he went to that camp, and that he received training as a saboteur there. That is not my problem. I can prove all that, but according to the Attorneys-General that is no crime. When he returns, I cannot charge him with anything, save that he left the country unlawfully and the maximum penalty for that is two years’ imprisonment. Therefore I do not wish to take administrative action against him. I say we should make it a crime for any man from this country to be trained as a saboteur in a foreign country, and when he returns we should be able to punish him, and the punishment prescribed in the Bill is the same as for sabotage, viz. a minimum of five years with further punishment in the discretion of the court. I believe hon. members will agree with me that we cannot permit people to receive such training in the countries I have mentioned.

I should like to say this, though. I know that Leballo is a braggart, and that is why I have never contradicted him. I wanted him to put his foot into it, and now he has done so. Now I should like to read a letter from him to one of his confidants here to indicate to hon. members the mentality of this type of person. He writes as follows from Cairo—

I say Leballo is a liar and a braggart and I cannot vouch for the truth of what is written here, but particularly I wished to show the mentality of this type of person we are dealing with.

Clause 6 of this Bill provides merely that there may be joint trials of persons for these crimes, and it is not necessary to dilate upon that. Clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11 deal more particularly with the recommendations of the Snyman Report. It will be noted that in Clause 11—the others are consequential—effect is given to the Snyman Report, and that preparatory examinations are dispensed with when in the opinion of the Attorney-General there will be interference with witnesses, or that witnesses will be intimidated, or when he deems it to be in the interests of the security of the State or in the public interest. It will be noted that the Snyman Report recommended that special courts should be established, and in Clause 11 (2) effect is given to that recommendation. This sub-section provides as follows—

In referring to special courts, the Snyman Report did not mean that they should be courts of three Judges or this or that. All that was intended by the recommendation was that these cases should be brought to trial as soon as possible and that accused persons should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, and that is what this clause does.

Clause 12 deals with the onus of proof in respect of crimes committed outside the Republic. Hon. members will recall that last year the principle was discussed of reports appearing in other newspapers, and which may under certain circumstances be accepted as prima facie evidence of the commission of such crimes.

Clause 13 deals with an amendment of the Post Office Act. Under our legislation at the moment—and hon. members who are interested might compare our Post Office Act with the British Post Office Act—the position is that if the Attorney-General happens to hear that there is postal matter in existence that may shed light upon a crime, he may request the Postmaster-General to hand that postal matter over to him, and then the Post-master-General has to hand that article over to him. That has been our law since 1910, and during all hese years the law has been applied accordingly. We are still applying that principle, but we are merely going further now and saying that not only shall the Attorney-General have the right to direct the Postmaster-General, after hearing that there is such a postal article in existence, to give it to him, but the Postmaster-General is now given the right to say to the Attorney-General: I have here with me a postal article I reasonably suspect of containing evidence of a crime. Then the Attorney-General may say: Give it to me. The Postmaster-General or his officials do not open it. He only has to have a reasonable suspicion that it contains evidence of a crime, and he can then report it to the Attorney-General. As the law stands now, he dare not do so. What is the position now? Firstly, communist literature is sent through the post. All of us are aware of it and we want to put a stop to that. But that is not all. I have said by way of an inerjection—and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will recall it—that Poqo have changed their name to the Night Club for their own purposes. In the meantime they have already changed their name once again, but I leave it at that. Now it happens that Leballo and his people are sitting in Maseru. They send telegrams to their people here in the Republic, openly through the Post Office. The whole thing deals with night clubs and jive sessions. It is a simple code to decipher if one knows it, and according to law the Post Office has to deliver it. That is valuable evidence. In the normal course we must wait until the telegram is delivered and then if there is a court case, we may ask the Postmaster-General for the original as it was handed in, to be used in evidence. But now we cannot obtain the original because the telegram was dispatched from Maseru. Hon. members will appreciate my difficulty from the point of view of evidence. In order to rectify this matter, it is necessary to have this clause. I want to go so far as to say that according to my interpretation this clause does not even go as far as the British Post Office Act, but I leave it at that.

I now come to Clause 14. Hon. members will recall that the Snyman Report found as a fact that Poqo is the same as the P.A.C., and he has drawn attention to the tremendous waste of time involved when in every specific case—and I have said how many cases are pending—lengthy evidence has to be led to show that Poqo is the same as P.A.C. All we are doing now is to incorporate that recommendation in this Bill. We are doing it in this manner, and that is the only way in which it can be done, by saying that the State President may by proclamation announce that B organization is the same as A organization, which is a prohibited organization. We have here four prohibited organizations, the Communist Party, the Congress of Democrats, the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. The State President may issue a proclamation declaring that Poqo is a continuation of the P.A.C. and the court must then accept that as proof that the two are the same. I need not dilate upon that, because it has been fully motivated in the Snyman Report, and as I understood the position, all of us have accepted the recommendations of the Snyman Report.

Clause 15 deals with the judgment in the Nokwe case. It really is of interest to lawyers only and I do not want to detain the House long on that. Clause 15 merely inserts the words “or objects similar to the objects of any such organization”. Briefly the position was that Nokwe and others were convicted by a regional court of continuing the A.N.C. The court found that the organization they were dealing with was similar to the A.N.C., but it said that the fact that it was similar in every respect did not mean that it was the continuation of that organization. That is why we are now inserting these words to put the matter beyond all doubt.

Then I come to Clause 16. After dealing with the other clauses I shall revert to this clause. Clause 17 I can, and do, assume to be perhaps the most contentious clause in the Bill. Let me say at once that it is a clause one lays before the House of Assembly with some reluctance, and will apply with reluctance. But in recent times it has become very clear to me—and I had very lengthy discussions with the police officers in connection with this matter—that it is absolutely essential that we should have this clause at this stage. The principle of the clause is that a person— and again not just any person—who is connected with crimes affecting the security of the State, and only such a person, may be detained by a police officer—in other words, by a lieutenant or a person of higher rank— for interrogation, and until he has answered those questions to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Police, but in no case for longer than 90 days. I appreciate it is not a provision that is proper in peacetime. I appreciate the responsibility that rests upon me in asking the House for this, but in regard to certain cases that are now pending, and which are of absolutely vital importance to us, we would have been able to make much more progress if he had had this provision. We would have been in a very much better position than we are in now. That is why, in spite of this, I have no hesitation in commending to the House that this clause be approved in this form. I repeat that South Africa is not the only country where people are so detained. In other countries of the world it has also been done when in the opinion of their Government, rightly or wrongly, it was necessary to do so. I do not wish to mislead anybody in respect of this section. This section then provides that nobody shall have access to the detainee without permission, and unfortunately it also provides—but this is absolutely necessary, and I shall give the reasons for this in the Committee Stage if I am requested to do so—that such a person shall not have access to his legal adviser without permission. I as a lawyer realize what I am doing here. I realize that I shall probably incur the displeasure of my own colleagues but I am prepared to do so for the sake of the security of the State, which I believe is at stake here. Hon. members will also find that habeas corpus is suspended here. It is necessary to do so, and in the Committee Stage I shall give the reasons for it.

Clause 18 deals with protected places, namely certain places of strategic importance and of vital importance to our economy, and provides that those places may be designated as protected places, and that people who are not authorized to be there may not be there; and that it should be properly fenced in and demarcated, and that the Minister may act in connection with it.

Those are briefly the principles contained in this Bill. Now I have been asked whether this Bill gives effect to the Snyman Report. It does in fact do so. I took the liberty of submitting this Bill to the hon. Mr. Justice Snyman as it stands now, after it had been drafted, and I did so by way of a letter, and I have his permission to read it to the House. This is what I wrote him—

Because I had a discussion with the hon. Judge about it, as to what exactly he meant by special courts, as it is capable of more than one interpretation—

Thereupon I received the following reply from the hon. Mr. Justice Snyman—

1. (1) Although the P.A.C. movement is wide-spread, it does not enjoy very extensive voluntary support in the Republic. The vast majority of the Bantu population are peace-loving and law-abiding. However, they are living in fear of the P.A.C. (or Poqo, as they call it). On many occasions, and wherever I was making inquiries, I found proof that the ordinary Bantu looks to the White man as his protector. This is the very reason why I so urgently recommended that steps be taken for their protection.
2. (2) The P.A.C. itself suffers from a serious lack of proper organization and discipline. In particular there is a struggle for leadership among potential leaders. A good deal of the rash acts of violence we have experienced were planned and executed by such undisciplined persons with a view to their own aggrandisement, and in the hope that thereby they would increase their status and their chances of leadership. The hostility towards the traditional tribal system of the Bantu also follows from this craving for leadership. The tribal chiefs stand in the way of that.
3. (3) The acts of the P.A.C. are twofold: Firstly, they want to compel the Bantu to accept their leadership by the cruel and violent manner in which they deal with the unwilling Bantu people; secondly, once that has been achieved, they want to drive the White man out of the country and take over the Government.
4. (4) The State must prepare itself for the position that the attacks and other activities of the P.A.C. will probably continue for several years, because the position will have to be faced where fugitives will constantly attempt to continue the movement from outside the Republic. For this purpose they are availing themselves of the protection given to them by other countries (including the neighbouring states). The P.A.C. is also being provided with financial support, training and advice from such places.
5. (5) A further difficulty the State has to contend with is that imprisonment restrains such evildoers temporarily only. Imprisonment, from the nature of things, seldom if ever serves as a deterrent to them, for when they are released they are lauded and so encouraged to resume their activities. Therefore steps are necessary to deal with this position. However, I have to point out that to send such persons back to their tribal areas after their release also creates problems. Complaints have been made to me that such persons will not adapt themselves to the tribal customs and ignore and undermine the tribal authority. Such persons could also very easily continue their activities from there, or flee the country and continue their subversive activities from elsewhere.
6. (6) Another point I should like to mention is that of the onus of proof in cases where the security of the State is at stake. It is an established and salutary requirement in our common law of evidence that in a criminal matter no person shall be convicted of a crime unless the State can prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That is in contrast with the onus of proof in civil matters where decisions are given according to the balance of probabilities. It may happen in a criminal trial that a Judge may not believe the story of an accused because it conflicts with the probabilities, yet he has to accept it and discharge the accused if it is reasonably possible that the accused’s story may be true. This onus of proof in criminal law may therefore have the effect that steps cannot be taken against persons who in all probability are involved in the plots against the State. Yet such persons may in all probability be engaged in exerting themselves to overthrow the State and to endanger the lives of its citizens. In my view the Legislature should consider whether a procedure cannot be created to deal with such subversive activities outside the ordinary criminal processes.
7. (7) In conclusion I note that in Clause 17 you are making provision for the detention of certain persons for interrogation for not more than 90 days. That of course is a principle which conflicts with the principles of our common law, and a departure from such a principle could never be subscribed to in normal times. However, the question arises whether, having regard to the circumstances as exposed during my inquiry, and the “cold war” here and in the world, the present time may be regarded as normal. So I am reluctant to comment upon the matter, but in this connection I endorse the proposition recently stated by ex-Judge H. de Villiers, that the security of the State sometimes requires that the rights of the individual shall be restricted, reluctantly but necessarily. I do not wish to create an impression of despair by what I have said. There is no need for that, but the P.A.C. is a cancer in our community, particularly to the Bantu people. I am offering these comments because I think it can be exterminated provided it is dealt with firmly. It should not be permitted to develop.

Yours faithfully,

J. H. SNYMAN.

Those are the comments I have received from the Commissioner who has an intimate knowledge of these matters.

I should like to conclude by saying that I have no hesitation in submitting this Bill to the House; that it should be clearly understood that I am not introducing this Bill as an act of panic, but that I am doing so knowing that the South African Police as well as the citizens of South Africa, to whatever political party they may belong, will together exterminate this cancer in our national life; that hereby we are creating weapons to exterminate those cancers in our national life. I have said on previous occasions that we have had much success and we are very thankful for it. From the very nature of things, I cannot give hon. members the assurance that we are out of the wood. As far as I am concerned, I know the difficulties and problems facing us. I go to bed with them and I rise with them. I know exactly what the problems and difficulties are. It worries me and it bothers me from the very nature of things because I am bearing the responsibility in connection with it, but from the bottom of my heart I wish to give this assurance to the House this afternoon that although those worries are with me constantly these days, I have never worried about one thing; I have never for a single moment been worried about the fine future of this Republic of South Africa, our fatherland.

Before dealing with the contents of this Bill or the case which the hon. Minister has made for it I should like once again to associate myself with the remark made by the Minister and complete the remarks which I myself made only a day or two ago in this House, expressing a sincere debt of gratitude to the S.A. Police for the job that they have done in respect of the situation which has been painted to us both by the hon. the Minister and by the Commissioner who inquired into the Paarl riots and the circumstances surrounding it.

Having said that, I think, Sir, that we must all appreciate that we face to-day the end of another melancholy chapter of the deterioration of the position in respect of race relations in South Africa under this Government. The hon. the Minister was careful to-day not to speak of crises; he was careful to-day to state his case moderately, but nevertheless to leave the impression, as I think he meant to do, that we have faced and are facing a serious situation. He did not recall the contents of the Interim Report of the Commissioner, Mr. Justice Snyman, which revealed that a shocking state of terrorism had developed in certain of the Bantu urban townships in and around this part of the world.

I dealt with that in the Senate.

The hon. the Minister may have his excuses for not saying so, but it is nevertheless right that I should remind the House that that was one of the matters dealt with in that report and that particular emphasis was laid on it. I think we must also call to mind that that report indicated that in many respects the ability of the Government to protect the law-abiding Natives was not what it should be. I think that report indicated also the tragic situation that the Government was unable to protect its own witnesses in many cases between preparatory examination and trial and for that reason made certain recommendations to the hon. the Minister.

Surely you know what the position is.

I do know what the position is, tragically. I think it is a most tragic position, and what makes it so tragic is that warnings have been given repeatedly from this side of the House as to the dangers of a situation developing of the kind which we have seen developing, as reported in that commission’s report. Sir, in 1950 when the Suppression of Communism Act was under discussion, I well remember that I myself said that the Government did not seem to appreciate that if they are going to destroy Communism, they must assist in removing the causes for its very existence. I remember saying (Col. 9126)—

In what countries of the world have they succeeded in doing that?

The hon. inquisitive Minister of Transport wants to know in what countries in the world they have succeeded in doing that. I would suggest to the Minister that he should make a point of studying—I think I have recommended it to him before—the history of Communism in Great Britain and the loss of its influence and the deterioration of its power, and the history of Communism in the United States of America and how it has been destroyed.

You are excelling yourself in platitudes.

I have read it.

I do not think the Minister has read it. I think the Minister must go and read the book “I Lead Three Lives I think he must read the “Story of the Pentagon” and a few others and perhaps we will get the Minister educated in due course in the study of Communism, because he seems to have the idea that you can defeat ideologies with legislation. You cannot. You can only defeat ideologies by placing against them ideologies which get so much more public support that those other ideologies vanish. I want to recall again that in 1953 when we were faced with the Public Safety Act I myself had to say (Col. 1095)—

In the third-reading debate on the Public Safety Bill the warning was given again. In 1960 when the Unlawful Organizations Bill was before this House, ten years later, I said—

Later on in the same debate I said—

Then in 1962 when the Sabotage Act was before this House I had to say (Col. 6113)—

Then in Column 6114 I said that it would have to ask for more severe and greater despotic powers and then I went on to say: “It is my great fear that we shall be proved correct again.” Well, we have been proved to be correct again, to my great regret, to my very great regret. This Government has had to come again for the umpteenth time to ask for more power: 1950, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1962, and now 1963—each time for more drastic powers for the Government to contain the situation. The Minister is warning us that he does not believe himself that this is the end either. He believes that he is going to have to come to Parliament for more powers. Sir, what are the causes which have led to this situation?

Read your Press and your own remarks.

Sir, I do not intend ignoring a man who has the impudence to make a statement of that kind because you see, Sir, that is the attitude of mind that is leading to the trouble in South Africa to-day. Always blame somebody else; never look in your own heart and see what mistakes your own Government has made. That is the tragedy. We have warned the Government time and again that they are unable to protect the law-abiding Natives in our big urban centres who have become nothing more nor less than a rootless proletariat with no real stake in the maintenance of law and order. We warned that they were becoming a fertile seed-bed for the dissemination of foreign ideologies, ideologies which are unwelcome to us. We have warned that the position is aggravated because all over the world the tendency is in the direction of greater rights to the individual; here in South Africa the trend is in the direction of diminishing rights to the individual. We pointed out how important it is to have respect for human dignity. Here in South Africa we see less and less regard for human dignity. Sir, we have warned the Government that they are breaking down the bridges for consultation but they continue on that road and they are beginning to reap the whirlwind as a result of what they have sown. Now, Sir, one is faced with something else and a result of some of the evidence led before the commission and recent convictions in the courts here in Cape Town; we have seen that corruption amongst certain of the administrators in those urban townships must also be a factor which makes it easier to intimidate people into following organizations of this kind.

What about talking about some of the town councillors?

I would not deny that for a moment; it might well contribute. Perhaps the hon. the Minister knows more about that than I do and I am not trying to imply anything; I am merely saying that the Minister knows more about that than I do. I believe that where you have corruption on the part of people who are in charge of vast masses of individuals of this kind, you create a most unhappy situation.

We know that the Government is asking for greater and greater powers. We know the legislation that they have had to put on the Statute Book and we have heard to-day from the hon. the Minister the history of what started the A.N.C.; how it divided to become the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. and how the P.A.C. became Poqo. Sir, I think the Minister has left out some rather important aspects of that history. I think he has left out the starting of the youth movement in 1944 which developed into the P.A.C.; I think he has left out the starting of the women’s movement in 1944. I think he has forgotten the comparative period of peace while the Natives’ Representative Council acted to an extent as a safety valve and to a limited extent as the mouthpiece for certain of the ideas for which that organization stood. I think he has forgotten the comparative period of peace during the time that the old United Party was in power before the present Government took over.

Was there bloodshed in 1946?

I remember the bloodshed in 1946. I know all about it. Does it compare with what has happened since? Sir, where are we to-day; what is the stage we have reached? We have had a restrained report from the Minister and we have the report of the Snyman Commission to which we should have regard. The Minister has not talked to-day about there being calm and peace in South Africa. He has warned us that there may be further trouble.

I said so all along in every speech I made.

I do not deny that; I do not know why the Minister interjects. He warned us that there may be further trouble. He has told us to-day that he does not say that the P.A.C. or Poqo is broken but he believes it has been given very severe blows and that it is by way of being in retreat and that it is in a situation where there is every chance of his being successful against it. I think he has indicated that a very serious situation exists, and indeed I think we accept those facts given by the Minister. He has also indicated that despite the powers that he has, he wants more powers to deal with this situation. Now, Sir, how is this situation to be dealt with? I remember that at the time the Public Safety Bill was under discussion this very matter arose and I said that if the Minister was asking for more powers, then he should show us that the existing powers he has are inadequate. He should show us that the powers he has taken are not too wide for the purposes they are intended to serve, and he must tell us that there is a state of affairs in the country which may lead to an emergency at any time if this Bill is not in operation. Well, what powers has the Minister? He has the power, of course, to declare an emergency under the Public Safety Act and he has the power to make regulations which will be subject to review by this House in due course, but he is apparently not satisfied with that. He is asking for permanent powers. Is it because he believes that he is going to be faced with this situation for a long time, that he is not satisfied with emergency powers of a temporary nature? You see, Sir, one has to test this.

Are you asking me to declare an emergency?

I am asking the Minister whether he has not powers to declare a state of emergency and I am asking him what his reasons are for not wishing to take that step, and I am asking him whether he is unwilling to take that step because the emergency regulations that he will promulgate will be of a temporary nature and will be subject to review by this House.

Because it is not necessary to declare an emergency.

No, it is not necessary and yet the hon. the Minister wants further powers normally associated with an emergency. Sir, this melancholy progress of asking for more and more powers we have seen in various countries of the world before. We have seen it to some extent in Kenya; we saw it to an extent in Rhodesia; we saw it in Algeria, and the Minister to-day quoted to us what happened in Northern Ireland before the 1922 Treaty, where those powers existed apparently for nearly 40 years and were apparently finally abrograted only when peace was made between Sinn Fein and the British Government and when they gave up their intention of trying to incorporate up their into Ireland. But we all know that the main battle was lost by the British Government. They gave Ireland their independence. Sir, in Algeria we have the same sad sort of story. There you have a whole series of organizations aimed at “liberation” which have sprung up, been suppressed and emerged again to continue the struggle in some form or other. The first outbreak of terrorism took place in 1945 under Messali Hadgi and Ferhat Albas. Their organization was called the Friends of the Manifesto of Liberty, the F.M.L. Then you had the formation of the Organization Speciale. Then you had Ben Bella escaping to Egypt in 1952 and the formation of the N.F.L. I think we all remember how many times the N.F.L. was alleged to be broken and how often it re-appeared.

In other words, we must hoist the white flag?

That is an example that I am not prepared to follow, but I have hope for this country; I have confidence in this country. I have confidence in its people of all races. That is where I differ from my hon. friend. He seems to have no confidence that he can make proper South African citizens of the non-European population of South Africa; that is his trouble. He has no hope, no faith. Three hundred years of civilization to him means nothing. He is prepared to give up and decide that he can only live with them here by separating the country and living perhaps on terms of internal hostility. You see. Sir, each time we have had this sort of legislation we have had another story, another situation. It started in 1950 with the story of the poisoned wells. In 1953 we had the riots; in 1956 there was something else; in 1960 we had our troubles and so it went on year after year. Here we again find ourselves in the melancholy position that the Government of the day has come to us and says that it needs these powers to maintain law and order in South Africa because that is what it amounts to and it has used the occasion of the presentation of the Snyman Report to come to Parliament to ask for those powers. Sir, we have debated this matter before, and I gave the Minister the assurance from this side of the House that in so far as his legislation carried out the recommendations of the Snyman Report and was reasonable, it would have the support of this side of the House, and those provisions have the support of this side of the House. But the hon. the Minister has seen fit to use this occasion also to ask for further powers, some of which are understandable and some of which will have our support; some of which we do not regard as understandable and some of which will not have our support. I regard this as being a Bill, the main principle of which is to give effect to the recommendations of Mr. Justice Snyman. Therefore the Minister will have our support at the second reading, but I want to tell him at the same time that there are certain clauses in this Bill which we cannot support. We are worried about Clauses 1 and 2 where the entire principle in respect of bail is changed. It is not changed only in respect of cases affecting the safety or the security of the State, but the entire common law principle is changed as the Minister knows. Why is that? He has made out a case for it in cases where the security of the State is concerned, but he has taken wider powers than are necessary—perhaps for technical reasons—but we have had no explanation and I want him to know that we regard those clauses with the greatest suspicion. In Clause 4 he has taken the power to detain in prison or elsewhere a man who has expiated his crime, who has served the sentence imposed upon him by the court for what he did because the Minister fears that there may not have been a change of heart and that that man may be a nuisance again. I can conceive that there are cases where there would be difficulties of that kind. I want to give the Minister the assurance that as far as we are concerned we cannot agree to his having unlimited powers under this clause. We shall move amendments in the Committee Stage to limit that clause, to cut it down and to see that there is reference either to some other body or that some other rights are accorded to the prisoners concerned.

And if a man remains the leader of a revolutionary organization?

The hon. the Prime Minister puts an interesting hypothesis which has not been proved.

[In-audible.]

I remember that hon. Minister saying to me that there will be compensation for the traders in the Transkei. He is still saying it but we know nothing about it as yet. Perhaps he is the seer who sees ahead for the Government.

When evidence is advanced which proves his association—and the Prime Minister can prove it—surely there is another way out straightaway. You can charge the man. Why take administrative powers? You can charge him before the courts. If he has been associated with that organization during his time in gaol, if he has communicated with them or if he is still accepted as their leader and he accepts that leadership, you can charge him straight-away; you have made it an unlawful organization. What worries us is this administrative power which will give that Minister the power to detain an individual or individuals—no one knows how many—for all time; he can keep them in prison for the rest of their lives without any case before a court of law, without any chance of the matter being reviewed or discussed and without our knowing what the reasons are. We cannot agree to a power of that kind.

There are certain other clauses which give us difficulty. I refer to Clause 8. The hon. the Minister has indicated that Clause 8 applies only in respect of offences against the safety of the State. That is the clause which takes away from the accused the right to preparatory examination. The preparatory examination can be suspended by the Attorney-General, as I read it, in all cases, cases entirely unconnected with the security of the State. Surely, Sir, that is not what the Minister needs. That is not what he wants to do. That has nothing to do with the security of the State or with the fighting of the P.A.C. or Poqo. Then we have the renewal of this hardy annual of the 12 days detention in Clause 9. We have some doubts about the prima facie case the Minister is trying to make in Clause 12.

Then we come to Clause 17 which is abhorrent to this side of the House, the clause which is anathema to any lawyer. It was interesting to note in what a restrained manner the hon. the Minister placed it before this House. We cannot agree to that clause. That is the clause which allows a police lieutenant to hold a man for 90 days in communicade, to question him, not allowing him to see a doctor, not allowing him to see his lawyer, not allowing him to be in touch with his family, to keep him in solitary confinement for 90 days; they need not even give him reading matter. In fact they do not give them reading matter if it is to be applied like they do in the special Transkei emergency regulations. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister in the course of his wanderings has ever been in solitary confinement.

I know more about it than you will ever know.

I wonder, I was in solitary confinement on many occasions. I know how long 30 days can be.

I had 42 days.

I had 30 in succession and a good few more afterwards on various occasions. What I want to know is this: All of us who practise law have had experience of the sort of thing that sometimes happen when people are being interrogated. We on this side of the House cannot support this clause at all. This clause will be opposed by this side of the House in Committee to the full and we cannot give the Minister any support for it. I do not believe that the Minister has made out any case for it at all; no case whatsoever.

When I say that we are prepared to support the Minister at the Second Reading may I say that we have to do it with great regret, because once again we are faced with legislation by this Government which is part of a patchwork. It is just an attempt to stop up the holes that have been created as a result of the sort of situation which has arisen under the policies of this Government. We have seen it coming; we have warned of the sort of situation that is developing and we have tried times without number to say to the hon. the Minister and his supporters on that side of the House that until you have amongst your urban Bantu a responsible class of person, a middle-class if you like, with a stake in the maintenance of law and order, you are perpetuating a seedbed in which organizations of this kind are going to give support or be able to intimidate people to come to their assistance. We have said to them time and again, Sir, that while you prevent these people from having any outlet at all for their political aspirations, however limited, in respect of the areas in which they live and in respect of the Parliament which controls their destiny, you run the risk that they will be ready convertees to people who want them to use other methods.

Why do you blame the urban Bantu for what the miscreants are doing?

The Prime Minister asks why I blame the urban Bantu for what these miscreants are doing. That is not what I said. That was not what I intended to say. I think the hon. the Prime Minister should realize that very rapidly. It is most significant that the A.N.C., the P.A.C., Poqo and all these organizations get their following in the urban areas. They do not get their support in the reserves but in the big urban townships.

They get very little following.

If the following is so little why all these precautions?

There is intimidation.

I am so pleased that the Minister has said that. He has said what I told him at the time of the bus-strike when he came to this House as a big man and told us how he was going to break the bus-strike. We all know what happened: The bus-strike nearly broke him. We warned the hon. the Minister at the time that that bus-strike existed because he and his Government were unable to protect the ordinary law-abiding Native in the urban townships. We told him that because he could not protect them they were subject to the intimidation of these people and that was why so many of them had been forced to participate in that strike. We still have that tragic situation, Sir. Take the record of Poqo; I have it here. I have the record of what has been going on, in, and around these urban townships since 1961. This is not guesswork; this is the evidence led by the barrister who appeared for the police at the commission of inquiry at Paarl. Here they refer to the activities of Poqo in Langa—

In 1963 a White man was murdered at Langa. Let us go into the position at Paarl. Let us see what happened in Paarl in November last year before those riots, before the difficulty arose and before proper police protection was given. Then I make the charge, as I made it once before, that this Government has been unable to protect the ordinary law-abiding Bantu in these great urban townships. That is one of the reasons why they are so subjected to intimidation and why organizations of this sort are able to flourish there.

This Government has come to us again to-day once more to ask us to help them with patch-work. Because we are a responsible Opposition and because we want to see law and order maintained as much as they do, we are prepared to assist them in respect of the recommendations of the Snyman Commission and in respect of those people who go outside South Africa for training as saboteurs or those who try to incite others to violence against South Africa. We shall give that support. I know they will come again. It will not be long and they will be before this House again and they will be asking for more powers. They will do so because nothing is being done to remove the causes of organizations of this kind being able to get a following. That is the tragedy of the situation. The only difference is that next time they will have learned from their failures. Next time they will be more adept and next time the Minister will ask for even further powers. Where is there a country in the world to-day where the Government has asked for the powers which this Government has had to ask? It is, as I say, the end of another melancholy chapter and I know another will begin. Until we can get it into the minds of this Government that it is vitally necessary for them to change their approach we are going to be faced with this situation time and time again. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we have to support the second reading of this Bill. We shall reserve our opposition to those particular clauses I have indicated in the Committee Stage.

I listened with a great deal of interest to what the hon. the Minister of Justice had to tell us this afternoon. I also listened with great interest to what the Leader of the Opposition has just said. I must say that what the Minister of Justice told us did not come as any surprise to me. We have been hearing the same story in South Africa since the Nationalist Party Government came into power, since 1950 when the first measure to take great powers was introduced, namely the anti-communist measure of 1950 and where we were told about poisoned wells, since the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, since the Public Safety Bill and since the so-called whipping Bill of 1953. We heard the same story when further amendments were introduced to the anti-communist legislation in 1956 and 1957. We heard the same story in 1960 when the Unlawful Organizations Act was passed and the A.N.C., the P.A.C., and allied organizations were banned.

Last year, when the Sabotage Act was introduced, one would have thought that the hon. the Minister had taken all the powers that were necessary, all the necessary powers to put down subversion and all the powers to deal with the so-called crisis situation which he said had arisen and for which he had to have very special powers. Now, Sir, to our astonishment we have to learn that the hon. Minister has not got sufficient powers and that he has to have greater powers because a new development has arisen in South Africa namely the development of Poqo which has struck terror in the hearts of members opposite and which organization, I may add, has been effectively dealt with, according to the Minister of Justice, certainly according to the Commissioner of Police, by the existing powers which the Minister has. Despite this the Minister is now asking for greater powers in terms of the recommendations of the Snyman Commission Report, as he says. I say that the Bill which is being introduced in Parliament to-day goes far beyond the additional powers suggested in the Snyman Commission Report. Despite the lesson which the Minister read to us this Bill does not translate into law the additional powers suggested in the concluding remarks of Judge Snyman.

I say that I was not particularly surprised at what the Minister had to tell us this afternoon. We have heard this story over and over again and I have no doubt that other situations will arise which will again entail very much the same story, if not poisoned wells or sabotage or murder, about some other terror which will mean the taking of still greater powers by this hon. Minister.

What does surprise me is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, after mentioning all the facts and after mentioning that he himself warned the Government when the whipping Bill was up for discussion in 1953 (the United Party supported that Bill), after telling us that last year when further powers were taken to ban unlawful organizations (which the United Party also supported) and when the Sabotage Bill was passed, he had warned the Government that those measures would have no effect whatsoever on the conduct of terror and subversion in South Africa, he nevertheless, when this measure comes before Parliament, says that he is going to support the principle of it because it translates into practice the recommendations of the Snyman Commission Report. When he went through the Bill himself he mentioned, as far as I can remember, Clauses 1, 2, 4, 8 and 17 as being the clauses which the official Opposition was going to oppose in the Committee Stage. These are the very crux of the Bill; these are the very essence of this Bill. How can one possibly support the principle of a Bill when you are going to vote against those clauses which contain the very crux and essence of it? I am going to vote against those clauses most decidedly at the Committee Stage. [Interjections.] I am going to be logical and I am going to vote against the second reading of this Bill as well. These clauses contain the very principle of the Bill and I cannot under any circumstances bring myself to support a Bill which embodies the sort of emergency regulations which are now being translated into permanent legislation in South Africa. That is what this Bill amounts to. The sort of regulations which the Government takes in emergency conditions are now being translated into the permanent legislation of South Africa so that the Government does not have to proclaim a state of emergency. The hon. the Minister himself, when he had a Press interview yesterday, more or less told the Press, if he was correctly quoted, that certain aspects of this Bill were similar to Proclamation 400, aspects where people can be held for interrogation for instance without trial. That is absolutely true. They are similar to Proclamation 400. Does this mean that South Africa and the Opposition party accepts the principle of the extension of an emergency regulation like Proclamation 400 to the whole of South Africa without the declaration of a state of emergency? I cannot imagine what has happened to South Africa. The hon. the Minister mentioned that he was prepared to face any charges which were brought against him for abusing the powers which he had already taken. He quoted with some considerable glee—that is the only way I can describe it—that Patrick Duncan had been used against him on an occasion and that Luthuli had been used against him on other occasions. He said he was quite sure that the examples would not be used against him in future.

Do you hold a brief for him as well?

I shall tell the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) exactly how I feel about that. Long before the final chapter of the struggle which is going on in this country is written a great number of other people who were formerely peace-loving people will be driven to desperate acts of recklessness.

Is that a threat?

It is not a threat; I am in no position to threaten but I am in a position to warn. The tragedy of South Africa is that people who should have opposed this Government are becoming intimidated by it and they are no longer opposing this Government. The very essence of this Bill which the hon. the Leader says he is going to oppose at the Committee Stage, he is supporting at the second reading in principle. That, perhaps, is even a greater tragedy for South Africa, the fact that the very people who should be putting up a fight against this Government, the people who should be showing South Africa how to oppose this sort of measure, are meekly sitting by and conniving with the Government in carrying out such a measure. [Interjections.] The hon. member talks about Nasser and Israel. I should like to tell him that had it not been for the Jews of Israel putting Nasser in his place just a couple of years ago the continent of Africa would have looked very different to-day. The hon. member might remember that. I am getting tired of this anti-semitic attitude.

I want to say something about the diminishing rule of law in South Africa. I know it is something which the hon. the Minister of Justice does not really treat with a great deal of respect. On one occasion I quoted a definition of the rule of law from the International Commission of Jurists. The hon. Minister waved it aside and said it was not worth the paper it was written on.

I agree with him.

I am sure the hon. member for Standerton agrees with him. I rather imagine that in an international legal council it is unlikely that either the hon. Minister of Justice or the hon. member for Standerton would carry very much weight. But the International Council of Jurists does carry some weight. I want to try to say something about the rule of law, that is, if I can do so amongst all these interjections. To me, Sir, this question of the rule of law is of paramount importance. The Bill which we are considering to-day is completely undermining the fundamental principles of the rule of law, the rule of law which is synonymous with civil liberty as far as I am concerned, synonymous with the ordinary freedoms of the individual, of which one of the most important is that he should not be held by the State unless he has been duly charged before a proper court of law, unless he has been properly tried openly, publicly and objectively by an impartial court of law. There are two fundamental clauses in this Bill which completely overrides the rule of law. The one is Clause 4 and the other is Clause 17. Clause 4 allows the hon. Minister to continue to hold in permanent imprisonment people who have already served certain sentences, people who have been tried before a court of law, who have been found guilty of a crime, have been imprisoned and who have served their term of imprisonment. Normally in any ordinary country such a person would be free unless he commits another crime. The Minister, without any further trial, without any further recourse to legal appeal, without any redress, without any access to legal advisers, may indefinitely hold a person who has already served his sentence for his crime. I believe that that is a clause which fundamentally subverts the rule of law in South Africa.

I also take exception to Clause 17. It contains this drastic provision whereby any member of the police force above a certain rank may, upon the suspicion that something is about to happen or that a person has information that something is about to happen, hold such a person for interrogation for 90 days and on his release apparently can rearrest him and rehold him for a further 90 days, again and again, because the law says specifically from time to time. I therefore presume that it can be repeated over and over again. What sort of evidence that is worth anything in a properly constituted court of law does the Minister think he is going to get after a person has been interrogated for 90 days? Does it not occur to him that the sort of interrogation that takes place under conditions like those can lead to perjured evidence and to disclosures which do not have a grain of truth in them? This objection of mine is however only a side issue. My basic objection to this clause is that it overrides completely every single fundamental principle of the rule of law.

Do you object to that in principle at all times?

I object to that sort of interrogation by a police officer in principle, yes. I am against that form of interrogation at all times.

Yet you supported that 20 years ago.

I am not talking about a time of war. I better clear up this point right away. I do not agree that South Africa is at war. I do not agree that it is in a state of emergency. If it is in a state of emergency the Minister has all the powers which he needs to declare a state of emergency. He has the power in such a case to interrogate people and to detain them and so on. States of emergency are one thing but to introuce such legislation as this as a permanent feature on our Statute Book, legislation which applies only to a state of emergency, is, I believe, repulsive to every person with democratic inclinations. I do not believe that South Africa is in a state of emergency. If she is it is the Minister’s duty to declare that state of emergency. I do not believe that South Africa is in a state of war. Hon. members opposite have forgotten what war means. They may have forgotten it because not many of them experienced it. [Interjections.] I certainly made a better contribution than some hon. members opposite. I certainly did not go against my country’s efforts. I certainly did not agitate against and spy on my country.

Which is your country?

This is my country, just as it is the hon. member’s country.

To me the rule of law means very simply, as I understand it (I am an ordinary citizen and not a lawyer), that there are several fundamental differences between a decision given under the normal rule of law and a decision given in an arbitrary fashion by State officials. I would say that the distinctions are as follows that at least the ordinary courts operate in public, the accused has the right to use a trained legal adviser, the charges against him have to be clearly stated and properly proved, witnesses who give hostile evidence can at least be cross-examined and finally—this is very important—the judgment given is based on facts, objectively weighed up facts by judicial men who have experience. Arbitrary decisions, which are the decisions which are going to be given under this Bill, are decisions given by officials behind closed doors where the accused does not even necessarily know what charges are being brought against him, where he has no chance of cross-examining witnesses and where he has no legal representation. That to me is the fundamental difference between a decision given by a proper court of law and the arbitrary decision of officials. [Interjections.] The hon. member has no respect for the rule of law; he does not understand the implications of what is happening because like so many other people in this country he has been conditioned to this sort of thinking and to this sort of legislation. The great tragedy is this that so many White people who normally would be lovers of freedom, people who cherish the heritage of freedom of their own people, have been conditioned year after year by the introduction of this sort of legislation and perhaps seeing around them every day the deprivation of normal civil liberties by the citizens of this country who do not happen to carry White skins. That is what children in this country are brought up with, that they go to the school with, they go to the university with and they enter adult life with. It is a conditioning which has taken place in this country so that to-day the deprivation of any of the normal liberties no longer means anything to the majority of the Whites who live in this country. And what is more, the sacrifice of these civil liberties has now been built up as being something which has to be done on the altar of the holy cow of apartheid. That is the idea that we must be prepared to sacrifice all our civil liberties in order to allow apartheid to flourish.

Go to Ghana and enjoy freedom there.

Poqo is not against apartheid.

The hon. Minister told us that there is a long history behind this sort of legislation and behind the things that are happening in South Africa to-day, I am not denying that, and I am not denying that before the Nationalist Party came into power there were laws on our Statute Book which did indeed undermine the normal rule of law, on the basis of colour discrimination specifically. There is the Native Administration Law of 1927 for instance, certain laws which restricted mobility, such as the Urban Areas Act, which applies to Africans and so on, and of course the Riotous Assemblies Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act which was passed in 1930 which also gave arbitrary powers to the Government. But by no stretch of the imagination could either those laws themselves or the implementation of those laws be compared with any of the powers taken under amending legislation, and indeed under new legislation introduced by this Government. It could not be compared. And what have we had? We have had simply a chain of action and reaction in this country, one piece of apartheid legislation followed by another piece of apartheid legislation, followed by protests, first non-violent, then violent protests, followed by laws to put down protests. That is the chain of action and reaction in this country. It has been going on now for 13 years and it is becoming more and more intense as times goes on. First you had peaceful protests and when they were suppressed, less peaceful methods were employed, until at last we have reached the stage in South Africa where we are going to be living, as I have said, under a sort of emergency regulation without the declaration of a state of emergency. It bears out the fears that all of us have expressed, as we have seen these things happening in South Africa. This is the great success story of apartheid: One piece of apartheid legislation followed by the next piece of apartheid legislation, and one piece of oppressive legislation to put down protests against apartheid, followed by another piece of legislation to put down protests which no longer now are non-violent, but protests which have become violent.

You have apartheid in your home.

We have got to the stage too where police intrusion has gone far beyond the ordinary duties of policemen in a democratic country. You have the wide interpretation for instance of the phrase “likely to endanger the security of the Republic”. That has led to all sorts of additional police powers being taken in a country which purports to be a democratic country. One does not find this sort of legislation, or this sort of intrusive police action in any other country in the world which purports to be a democratic country. I know what I am talking about. There is intimidation of all sorts of innocent people. I am not talking of action against communists, action against subversive organizations, etc. I am talking about action of the police going to normal meetings, normal protests, taking photographs, taking down the numbers of cars—in all ways trying to intimidate any people who go in for any sort of multiracial activity.

Has that not been the practice for the past 40 years in this country?

That may be so, but the sort of measures that the hon. Minister is implementing have not been the practice for 40 years.

I am referring to your argument.

Well, I do not believe that those measures have helped us in this country, I do not believe they have done anything to engender racial harmony in South Africa. The fact that these things may have happened to a lesser degree for 40 years in this country, does not improve anything in my eyes. I am looking for improvements in the situation, not more and more drastic measures and I want to tell the hon. Minister perhaps of some of the things which I believe have led to this series of chain reactions we have in South Africa.

“One man one vote.”

No, not “one man one vote”. I am referring to normal civil liberties for people living in this country, normal sharing of responsibilities with intelligent and educated people and most of all the opening up of opportunities to people of all races in this country. Those are the things which would remove the racial grievances in this country, the rising tide of racial grievances. It does not mean the handing over of South Africa to uneducated, irresponsible elements. It means the sharing of some of the fruits of this country with people of a different skin. That is what it means. Sir, to me it is quite ironic that in the so-called fight against Communism in this country, the Government of South Africa should finally end up by placing measures on the Statute Book which are undistinguishable from the measures taken in totalitarian or communist countries. That is the ironic thing that to fight Communism, this Government is taking unto itself powers that one only finds in totalitarian countries, and that is what the hon. Minister is doing to-day. I want to say quite categorically that I do not believe that legislation like this prevents the day of violence, or will in any way stop it from coming any nearer. On the contrary, I believe that legislation like this, if anything, will bring the day of violence nearer in South Africa….

And you will welcome it!

No, I do not welcome it. I have spent ten good years of my life in trying to get a little sense into that Government. I believe it will increase all the outside pressures that are being brought to bear against South Africa, and it will increase all the pressures that are building up inside South Africa. I do not believe that such legislation has any effect in preventing violence or subversion. If only during the 13 years since the first piece of this type of legislation was passed, the principal Act which we are amending (the Suppression of Communism Act), certain measures had been taken to ameliorate conditions for non-Whites, things would have been very different in South Africa to-day. But at the same time that one piece of legislation after the other restricting protests is being passed in South Africa, we have had at the same time the passing of Acts like the Population Registration Act, the Group Areas Act with its forcible removals which engender insecurity, the tightening up of the Urban Areas Act, the pass laws, so that 1,000 people a day go to gaol in South Africa, or are at least convicted in South Africa under the pass laws.

Oh no!

The hon. member says “Oh no!”, but these are official figures which I got from the Minister himself. 1,000 people a day are convicted under pass laws. The endorsements out are reaching ever greater heights, the recent instructions given by the hon. the Minister in regard to trading rights—these are all additional grievances building up all the time; the break-up of family life which is going on at an increasing rate all the time in South Africa; the fact that wages are too low; the fact that there are removals, banishments without trial. These are the things that are engendering these racial grievances, particularly as these things are all applied on a colour basis. They all build up racial grievances. Hon. members can shout “Poqo” as much as they like, but whether they like it or not, these are the laws in South Africa which are building up racial grievances. Hon. members may laugh, and they may think that they can sleep more securely in their beds to-night because the second reading of this Bill will have gone through as easily as it apparently is going through, but I want to tell hon. members that they will sleep less and less easily in this country …

Why?

Because, as I have told hon. members, there is no amelioration of the conditions that cause racial grievances. I want to tell the hon. member that as long as the Government continues on those lines, it can introduce the most drastic sort of legislation that it can cook up in the dark watches of the night, but South Africa will not be at peace with itself, South Africa will not sleep happily at night and hon. members over there least of all.

Sir, when you add to these major grievances, the break-up of family life, the endorsement out, the gaolings under the pass laws, the forcible removals under the Group Areas Act, increased taxation, wages not keeping pace by any degree with the rising cost of living, and you add to this the insults that are flung at educated Africans… I wish the hon. Minister would give me his attention for one moment longer, because he made a point to which I want to draw his attention. He said that it was not the oppressed people who were to be found at the head of these organizations. That is a legitimate point. He stated that the young man who was recently gaoled for 12 years, in Grahamstown, I think it was, was a lecturer at Rhodes University. He mentioned that Sobukwe was an educated man. That is all absolutely true. Does not the hon. Minister see any reason for this? Does he not see that these very people who are educated have no greater rights than the most uneducated tribal Africans? Does he not realize that in them the sense of smouldering grievances is even higher, because they do not consider themselves the inferior of the White man, while at every turn they are unable to enjoy equal opportunities on the same basis and sharing responsibility in the government of this country, etc.? The educated people feel these grievances even more strongly. And in every revolutionary movement in the world, as the hon. Minister should know, the revolutionary leaders did not come from the ranks of the downtrodden, oppressed and poverty-stricken people, but they came from the ranks of the more educated people; people who are able to see racial grievances and who themselves are suffering under these grievances, become the leaders of their people, and because their people are downtrodden and repressed, they are of course obviously easy converts to any revolutionary cause. Surely the hon. Minister must realize that. And when you add to these overwhelming restrictions under which the African people suffer, the pinpricks that the educated people, and the insults that the educated Africans have to suffer, you can realize how these grievances are built up. Take the Nursing Amendment Act which made racial differentiation in the profession compulsory, the sort of thing we have in the sporting bodies of this country, the comments made by the hon. Minister of the Interior that he is going to prevent any multi-racial association in any profession …

Why do they have the same thing in Rhodesia?

Because Rhodesia unfortunately did not implement its policy of partnership until all the faith of the Black man in the good intentions of the White people had disappeared.

Why did it then happen in Kenya?

Is the hon. Minister referring to the Mau Mau? The hon. Minister is absolutely wrong when he says that there was equality in Kenya. Does he know nothing about the land laws in Kenya where all the best farming land was in the hands of the Whites? Whatever gave the hon. Minister the idea that there was equality in Kenya? That is absolute nonsense! And he mentioned Angola. Does he know anything about the policy of assimilation being followed in Angola or Portuguese East Africa? Does he not know that the Portuguese Government itself has admitted that it only recently started to remove some of the very heavy restrictions on the Africans there? The hon. Minister is very ill-informed.

There are hon. members opposite who will not admit that any genuine grievances exist.

But they are not the cause.

The hon. member says that there are grievances but they are not the cause of these happenings. Well, the hon. member has said over and over again that there are no genuine grievances. He and his colleague from Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) have said repeatedly that there are no genuine grievances, that they are only worked up by White agitators, only stirred up by communists, and anybody who mentions these things is communist-inspired or under the influence of Communism or a fellow-traveller. I want to suggest to those hon. members just to try and use their imagination, and imagine themselves in a Black skin for one day of their lives, and let them see whether it is easy to get a job, to move freely around in the country of their birth, to live where they wish to live, to have their wives and family living with them, and whether they would consider it a grievance if they lost the job which they held and at the same time to find themselves deprived of the right to stay in their homes, which happens over and over again. If these hon. members would suffer one day the indignities that are suffered in the ordinary everyday life by the Black citizens and the non-White citizens of this country, they would perhaps have their eyes opened a little to the real things that should be done in South Africa if we wish to present Poqo or a night club, or under whatever name the next subversive movement is going to be known, because the hon. Minister himself has already admitted that these new subversive movements spring up. If he wishes to undermine subversive activities in South Africa, this is not the way to do it. This Bill will make things worse from every point of view. It will undermine the rule of law, it will build up tensions outside against this country and it will go on increasing the tension inside South Africa. It will enable extremist African leaders to find thousands upon thousands of recruits to their cause. I say finally to the hon. the Minister that he should learn perhaps that it is the very failure of moderate African leaders to achieve any improvement in the everyday life of the Africans that has led to the rise of extremist African leaders in South Africa—it is the failure of the moderate Africans to achieve positive results for their people. That also happened in Rhodesia, and also here it gives the extremist leaders a chance to rise. The hon. Minister should not deceive himself and his own supporters and should not deceive the official Opposition that the measure that he is taking to-day is in any way going to assist the position. It will not help South Africa to become a harmonious multi-raicial country.

Lest a silent vote by the Coloured Representatives is misconstrued, I have decided to say a few words on this all-important piece of legislation. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has clearly indicated the policy of her party as she always does. I do not wish to follow up what she has said. She has put her case very forcibly.

Neither do I wish to discuss the position of the Coloured people at this stage, except to say that it is to the credit of the Coloured people that a very few misguided people only have been brought before the courts in connection with sabotage and acts against the State. But if I might give a warning to the Government, it is this. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has warned the Government that they can come with Bill upon Bill, narrowing the gap, closing loopholes, but you will never be able to have peace unless you remove certain irritations, certain causes of dissatisfaction. I want to ask the hon. Minister, who has the task of preserving law and order to appeal to the Cabinet to reconsider their attitude towards the Coloured people. Because if you do not do so, as sure as day follows night the Coloured people will be driven towards those whom they feel are fighting for certain justices which are denied to them. We have considered this matter very carefully. We are not happy at all about this legislation. We know however that the Coloured people are worried, and I want to just quote what I said in 1960 when that Act was before this House. I voted against the Act at the time and I told the Government then that they would have to come again, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition also said.

I said so myself.

Well then the hon. member was prophetic at the time. I said then—

I also said that the Coloured people want to observe the laws of the country, but they want to be treated as full citizens of the country, and the Government should reconsider its attitude towards the Coloured people.

I merely want to say that had it not been for the Snyman Commission, we would never have voted for this type of legislation, but we are of the opinion that it would be irresponsible on the part of any member of Parliament having that report before him, to say that he will completely ignore it and not give effect to it. Therefore we have, despite our objections to this Bill, decided to support the viewpoint put forward by the Leader of the Opposition that we will vote for the second reading, because in our opinion we must give effect to the recommendations of the Snyman Report. But we want to make it perfectly clear that there are clauses in this Bill to which we take strong exception and that we will do our best in the Committee Stage to try so to amend them as not to offend against the accepted principles of law in this country. That is all I need say. Supporting the second reading for reasons which coincide with those of the Leader of the Opposition, we do feel unhappy about certain of the clauses.

I have to reply to three speeches from that side of the House, and I shall begin with the last speaker, the hon. member who spoke on behalf of the Coloured representatives. In any event, I am assuming that he spoke on their behalf, but it seems to me there is a quarrel in that caucus over there, and therefore I am assuming that the hon. member spoke for himself. The hon. member, who then spoke on his own behalf and professes to speak on behalf of the Coloureds, has a habit of making charges against the Government because of the manner in which it deals with the Coloureds, while he is the member par excellence who ought to know that he ought to show gratitude to the Government for what the Coloureds have obtained under the regime of this Government. Surely the hon. members knows as well as I do what is being done for the Coloureds. Surely the hon. member knows as well as I how much better off the Coloureds are under the present Government than they were under the previous regime. The hon. member is surely aware of that.

It is their due.

I am not talking to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout now. I shall talk to him when he obtains a seat as Coloured representative, possibly after the next election.

They are merely getting their rights.

They are getting their rights, and the hon. member will see to it that he will get a seat from them. While we are talking about the Coloured question, however, I should like to give the hon. member for Boland the assurance that we are grateful to the Coloureds for not lending their ears to agitators. I am very thankful for that, and I must say I am very thankful also that the Coloureds do not always lend their ears to that hon. member. I should like to state here that as regards these subversive activities, with the exception of a certain group of Coloureds, we have very few problems and very little trouble with the Coloured people in South Africa.

Then we come to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). The hon. member has as usual charged the Government with it, and more particularly me, that with legislation of this nature I am on the way to a Nazi camp, or—she even went that far—to a communist camp. I am not on the way to a Nazi camp or a communist camp with this or any other legislation, but if it should ever happen in the remote future that I should pay a visit to a communist camp, I am convinced that I shall see a lady there, and if I did not know the hon. member for Houghton so well, I would be prepared to say that she is the one I see there.

As regards the charge the hon. member felt herself called upon to make, instead of arguing a matter to its conclusion, it cuts no ice with me any longer. The hon. member referred to the International Society of Jurists and held them up to me as a model to the world. Is the hon. member aware that, apart from any other matter now, those are the people who are sending representatives to South Africa and this has happened on several occasions— and that those representatives have remained in the country for days and some times weeks, in Pretoria or Johannesburg, and that they have not even had the good manners to introduce themselves to the Leader of the Johannesburg Bar or the Pretoria Bar? They did not even take the elementary trouble, apart from showing good manners, to go and ask the leaders of the Bar, who are not my followers and who do not subscribe to my party’s principles (and everybody knows that)—what the position is in respect of rule of law in South Africa. Does that look like people who want to ascertain facts? Do they look like people of whom we can take notice? I can understand that people overseas who do not know better will believe them. I can understand that, but I am astonished that the hon. member believes them. I also take the very strongest exception to the fact that the hon. member constantly wants to create the impression that opposition is no longer being tolerated here in South Africa, as if criticism is no longer permitted and as if protests have been prohibited. She will not be able to make South Africa swallow that, because South Africa knows it is untrue. Of course it is not true. Surely the hon. member knows that there is more irresponsible and unbridled criticism in South Africa than in almost any other country in the world. The hon. member knows that in other countries of the world people refrain out of patriotism from this kind of criticism that we have in South Africa, however, much they may differ from one another. But in South Africa there is a type of person who has no patriotism at all and therefore does not apply that restraint to his criticism. Surely it is pure nonsense and misleading the world outside to say that protests may not be voiced and that criticism may not be uttered.

Where did I say that?

The hon. member entertained us for 40 minutes and that is all her speech amounted to. Whither is that hon. member bound? What does she want? Why does she use long sentences and pious words? Why does she not tell us straight out that it is the policy of herself and of her party that the Black man should take over in South Africa?

Hear, hear!

That is not true.

Order!

That is what the whole of the speech of the hon. member this afternoon amounted to that these things are supposed to have happened because we are withholding those rights from the Black man; and the hon. member knows as well as I do what rights the Black man wants. I read it out to her and she said that what he wanted was to take over South Africa.

Why do you not reply to my question?

Order! If the hon. member wishes to put a question, she should rise and put it.

Then I ask why the hon. the Minister does not reply to my questions.

I am glad the hon. member is now becoming so ashamed of what she said here this afternoon that she is running away from the baby she has given birth to. In the circumstances I need not devote any more time to that hon. member.

I now come to the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I have to confess honestly that I am very sorry about the attitude adopted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in replying to the debate. I very carefully refrained from making any charges and the hon. leader knows that I could have made many had I wished to do so. But I refrained on purpose from making accusations. I deliberately refrained from quarrelling. I dealt with the matter calmly and objectively throughout. However, the hon. member unfortunately could not resist the temptation to make the charge, with great verbosity, that this situation that has now led to the introduction of this Bill has been caused by the policy of the Government. Surely that is not so. I have just told the hon. the Leader, and I produced the necessary proof, that it has nothing to do with the policy of any Government, and that these people have been following this course not since yesterday or the day before, while this Government has been in power, but that they were already there when the hon. member’s party was in power and while General Smuts was still alive, and that General Smuts said of these people that they were preaching a diabolical gospel. Did they then preach that diabolical gospel as a result of the policy of the United Party? Surely that is not so. The hon. member knows it is not so, and that is why the Liberal Party and the Communist Party are finding each other, in spite of their ostensible ideological differences, because they stand for one man, one vote, the communists to use it only once because thereafter it will no longer be necessary and the liberals ostensibly and theoretically for ever. That is why they both stand for one man, one vote, and that is what these people want to force upon South Africa with violence, namely that there should be only one Central Parliament in South Africa in which everybody, including the Black man, must be represented, and that that Parliament should govern the whole of South Africa, represented according to numbers. If now the hon. Leader makes that accusation against this side of the House, surely then it is very clear that in respect of these people who are committing these acts of violence, the Liberal Party is much nearer to them than any other political party, and the Progressive Party stands much closer to the Liberal Party than any other party, and the United Party stands much closer to the Progressive Party than any other party. [Interjections.] It is the National Party that adopts the viewpoint that there shall not be Bantu representatives in Parliament who will decide the fate of the White man in South Africa. But if we want to reproach each other, I can reproach the hon. the Leader something much more easily than he can reproach me, and he presents a much better target than I do, when I say that if he permits, and admits in principle, that the Black man of Southern Africa— for in his policy the Protectorates also play a role—should have a seat in this Parliament, what moral right has he got. once he has said to the Black man “You have the right to sit here”, to tell him to go away when he tells you that he wants representation according to his numbers in this Parliament? [Interjections.] We are now dealing with the Bantu, and I have just told the Coloured Representatives that I have no problems with the Coloureds in connection with these things, except for a few individuals. But the mere fact that the hon. Leader has asked me this question shows that he impliedly admits that my argument is correct. [Interjections.] But what do we achieve now? Let me ask the hon. Leader: He and his party have now decided to support the second reading of this Bill. The hon. Leader concluded with the words that I had asked them for assistance in having this patchwork legislation passed. I have stated my case to Parliament. I did not ask for assistance from anybody; I merely asked Parliament fot its assistance and approval. But I should like to put it very plainly that I did not consider it necessary to ask for the assistance of the Opposition, and I purposely did not do so because I do not believe I should ask anybody to do what is his solemn duty to his father-land. But I should now like to ask the Leader of the Opposition seeing that his party has so decided—and I am thankful for that decision; I want to make no secret of the fact that I am glad the Opposition has taken that decision— but while a decision has been taken to support the second reading, what do we achieve now with all the reproaches the hon. the Leader has made here? Was it really necessary to do so? If the hon. the Leader now tells me that it is to vindicate himself with the Press or with somebody outside, I can understand it and I shall forgive him.

Or with somebody here, such as Russell.

But I find it difficult to understand it, and that is why I am asking where this gets us. I do not wish to make recriminations. I could quarrel with the hon. Leader until to-morrow but I merely want to ask him this. Seeing that the situation has developed as I have outlined it here, it must be very clear now to any objective person that even if the hon. Leader and his party had been in power, this situation would still have existed, and if I wished to be cattish I could make bold to say it would have been even worse, because this situation was there in embryo already when the United Party was in power. It germinated in such a way that one of the greatest acts of violence we have ever experienced took place on the Rand, organized by Harmel and the other communists. Dozens and dozens of people were shot dead, and I was a witness to that because it so happened that it occurred near my home during the great mine strike on the East Rand in 1946. The Prime Minister—if we want to make accusations now—gave a lengthy account on another occasion of the acts of violence that took place in their time, many more than occurred under our regime.

But we did not then seek these powers.

But where do these recriminations lead us? Let me ask the hon. Leader just this one question: If Leballo were now to read his speeches, would he not feel fortified thereby in this sense, that he will at least say to himself, and that he will tell the outside world which does not understand our position: The Leader of the Opposition says I am doing this because it is the result of the policy of the Government.

No, but he receives support as a result of the policy of the Government, which he would otherwise not have received.

The hon. Leader supports the second reading, and I repeat I am thankful for that, but he supports it with the reproach that this organization is the result of the policy of the Government, and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) wrote in the Cape Argus that we are the cause of the coming into existence of Poqo. Is that so or is it not?

It has been there always, but it is growing luxuriantly under you.

It is only political tactical support which is worthless.

This is what the hon. member for Yeoville wrote in the Argus—

Disgraceful.

The hon. member refers to this Poqo legislation and says I instructed the law advisers to draft legislation against Poqo, and these Poqo are poor stupid people who act in this manner “because they have been deprived of all opportunities to seek lawful changes [Interjections.] The hon. member refers to the legislation and his whole article deals with Poqo. At whom is the legislation aimed? Will the hon. member tell me?

It is aimed at any unlawful organization. Is it not so?

Now we are making progress. It is becoming much worse still. The hon. member says it is against any unlawful organization, and that is what he meant. In other words, what the hon. member wrote, seen in the light of this interpretation he has just attached to it, is that the hon. member says it is aimed against any unlawful organization; in other words, he says it is against the communists, the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. and they are there as a result of the policy of this Government, and he is stepping into the breach for all of them. [Interjections.] I do not wish to make further comments upon it. It does not pay me to do so, but I feel the need to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this question: Do you support this Bill on principle, or are you supporting it because you know that the voters of South Africa are supporting the Government? Do you support it on principle, or through opportunism?

Listen to the answer.

The Leader of the Opposition can consider that, and when we come to the Committee Stage we can talk about it. He has mentioned certain aspects which I shall discuss further with him in the Committee Stage. I do not think this is the time or the occasion to do so.

What is the meaning of Clause 8?

It means just what it says. It is the result of the Snyman Report. I interpreted it as it stands here and it has to be in this form to apply to the cases contemplated by the Snyman Report. I have formulated it thus and I have put it to Judge Snvman in this form, and he says it gives effect to his report.

What we desire to have clarity about is this. Is it applicable only to matters of security, such as the suppression of Communism and sabotage, or to all cases where the Attorney-General gets the power to do this?

It says that if witnesses are interfered with …

No, not in Clause 8.

I beg your pardon, it is Clause 11. Clause 8 has nothing to do with the whole matter. It is merely consequential to Clauses 9, 10 and 11. There is no substance at all in Clause 8. The hon. member may forget about Clause 8 altogether. It merely has to be there for consequential reasons.

I had hoped so, but when I checked it again, it seemed different to me.

No, the law advisers assure me that it is so, and that is why I did not even concern myself with Clause 8, because I thought the hon. member was referring to Clause 11. The essence is in Clause 11, and the hon. member need not worry about Clause 8.

I still have to reply to one question. The hon. Leader asked me whether the emergency regulations do not provide for all these powers I am asking for now. My reply is yes, I can do all these things under the emergency regulations, but I have asked the hon. Leader whether he wants me to proclaim a state of emergency? Because this is not the kind of state of emergency that warrants the application of the Emergency Act. There is no spontaneous rebellion in South Africa. It is an organized rebellion by a group of people inside and outside South Africa, a group that knows all the tricks to stay out of the hands of the law, and which has at its disposal the best possible advice. They are not people who hesitate to intimidate the Bantu to effect their diabolical objects, as Mr. Justice Snyman has said again in this letter. Must I now, for the sake of those people, plunge the whole of South Africa into a state of emergency? Surely it would be unwise of me to do so. It would not be fair to the public, but what is more, I would do our economy tremendous harm overseas if I were to do so, and surely the hon. Leader does not wish me to do that. No, let us see the matter in its proper perspective, as I have said and as the Prime Minister said yesterday. We are living in serious times; depending on whether or not one regards the cold war as a crisis in the world, one could say one is experiencing a crisis, but it is not the kind of crisis for which one proclaims a state of emergency. America is in the same state of crisis, with this difference that its enemies are sitting on its borders, and they do not have so many people in their midst who are dangerous. But they do not proclaim a state of emergency on that account. That is why all I am doing is to place on the Statute Book powers I would otherwise have had in a state of emergency, in order to combat this situation.

But I am very grateful to the hon. Leader for one thing, and I wish to conclude with this. He has made many reproaches. I have noted down 14 or 15 of them, but I am glad about one thing he did not say, and he did not say it because he could not say it. He did not make the accusation, although I invited it in my second-reading speech, that the Government or I have ever abused in any respect the powers we asked for previously. I am very glad he did not accuse us of that, for it simply is not true. We do not propose abusing these powers we are now seeking any more than we as a Government or I as an individual abused the powers we asked for in the past.

Clause 11, in the following words, “the period of apprenticeship and the extent to which and the circumstances under which such period may be curtailed or extended”, amends the present Act which provides for the period of apprenticeship, the variations of such period which may be allowed and the circumstances under which those variations may be allowed. This clause amends that sub-section, and the effect of it will be that the Minister will be in a position to extend the period of apprenticeship to any period he desires. There is no limit whatsoever placed upon the Minister in terms of this new sub-section. During the second-reading debate we on this side made it clear that we felt that it was desirable that there should be some curtailment of the Minister’s powers in respect of this sub-clause, and for that purpose I intend to move the following amendment—

There are other reasons for which the Minister may extend the period of apprenticeship. I do not wish to interfere with those. I am only referring to the power which the Minister is now taking to extend the period of apprenticeship in respect of apprentices who fail to pass the qualifying trade test, whether it is at the end of their fourth year or fifth year, depending upon the trade in which they are apprenticed. The Minister is asking this committee for this wide power and I suggest that there should be this curtailment that I have suggested in this amendment. The Minister will know that there has been a considerable amount of discussion and that there has also been correspondence between himself and certain trade unions in respect of the decision which the Minister has announced that he intends to take, and that is to extend the period of apprenticeship by one year in respect of any apprentice who fails to pass the trade test at the end of his apprenticeship. We feel that this amendment will make it quite clear that the intention of the Minister is written into the new Act, once this Bill has been passed and that his power to extend the apprenticeship will not exceed one year.

I wish to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton). I believe that the proposed new paragraph (b) which provides for the curtailment or extension of the period of apprenticeship is one of the most important provisions in the Bill, because this is an enabling clause to give effect to the recommendation of the National Apprenticeship Board in its report submitted some years ago. As mentioned by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana this provision is one which may have severe consequences. I understand that certain trade unions object to this particular provision, and I feel that the Deputy Minister should accept this amendment because the whole intention underlying this Bill is to create better training facilities and to have more selective placement of apprentices in the various designated trades. In view of the improvements which are likely to be brought about as the result of the other provisions of this Bill, a big majority of the apprentices should be able to pass the compulsory test at the end of the five-year period of apprenticeship. I think there is a good deal of merit in the suggestion that perhaps this particular provision could have been left out of this Bill, and that there should first be a trial period to see whether in point of fact the result of the passing of the other provisions in the Bill is not to bring about a greater degree of proficiency and a higher percentage of passes in the trade test. It would then not be necessary to make provision for the extension for the period of apprenticeship by one year. In these circumstances I do hope that the Deputy Minister will accept the amendment. While dealing with the other provisions of this clause, I would be grateful if the Deputy Minister could give us some further information in connection with paragraph (b) which provides for the circumstances under which apprentices may be released from work by their employers for the purpose of attending classes. The proposed new paragraph (d) gives effect to another recommendation of the board to the effect that the apprentice shall attend classes during his own time in the absence of a satisfactory report of the Technical College. Then there is a similar provision in (i) (iii) which provides that if an apprentice absented himself without good reason from classes, the employer may deduct so much from his remuneration as is payable to him in respect of the day on which, or the time during which, he so absented himself. The question that I wish to ask the Deputy Minister relates particularly to the proposed new paragraph (d), which provides that if an apprentice has not produced a satisfactory report from his Technical College, he will be required to attend classes during his own time and not during working hours. What I want to ask is this: Will he be permitted to attend classes during working hours if at a later stage he shows an improvement and is able to produce a satisfactory report from his Technical College? Sir, some weeks ago we had the benefit of seeing a report from the head of an apprentice school, the Technical College in Durban, who produced some alarming facts and findings which go to show that there is a lack of interest by apprentices in their studies. This report also revealed appalling examination results on the theoretical side. I come back here to paragraph (1) (iii), and my question is who is going to determine whether the apprentice had a good reason for not attending classes? Will it be left to the discretion of their employer? Then paragraph (c) which proposes to substitute a new paragraph for the existing paragraph (h) of subsection 2. deals with the trade tests that the apprentice will be required to undergo, and similarly paragraph (j), which substitutes a new sub-section (13) for the existing sub-section, provides that if an apprentice passes a qualifying trade test prescribed under paragraph (h) of sub-section 2, prior or subsequent to the stage so prescribed, his contract of apprenticeship shall be deemed to be terminated by effluxion of time, with effect from a date 21 days after the last day of the test. I should be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister could tell us why it is provided here that if an apprentice passes the trade test, he will only receive recognition of that fact 21 days after the last day of the test. Previously the apprentice gained artisan status from the date on which he passed the test. Sir, this clause incorporates several important recommendations of the board, and many of these provisions will have far-reaching effects on the apprentice. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister could give us some indication as to whether the new provisions which are incorporated in this clause will affect those apprentices whose contracts are already registered. In other words, will it only affect the new apprentices or will it also affect those persons who are already serving their term of apprenticeship. If this is only to affect new apprentices then it is understandable, but there are large numbers of apprentices for whom the passing of the clause will mean a drastic change in the terms of their contract and I should be glad to have some indication from the Deputy Minister with regard to the various aspects which I have mentioned here.

Sir, the whole of Clause 11 is most important but 11 (b) deals with the educational requirements of apprentices. The Deputy Minister has indicated that the provisions of this clause will enable him to vary the time during which the apprentice will attend technical college, either in the employer’s time or in his own time, it also makes it possible to introduce a type of block system of training in the technical colleges. Sir, it is no good making these provisions for training unless the whole system of theoretical and practical training at technical colleges is overhauled. You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. If the courses prescribed at the technical colleges over which I take it the Minister has control, are unsuitable for the trade which the apprentice is learning, then naturally he is going to be completely uninterested, and you will find that the Minister will receive numerous reports from the technical colleges to the effect that there are quite a number of boys who show no interest, and he will therefore vary the times that they will attend technical college in their employer’s time. Sir, this is most important. We are not going to make any headway as far as the training of apprentices is concerned unless the Minister’s Department in conjunction with the Department of Education, goes into the whole question of the theoretical and practical training at colleges. If he is going to introduce a block system of training then it will be useless letting the apprentices go to the technical college if the courses prescribed are not brought up to date. As I said in my second-reading speech, the present syllabus was introduced in 1951. That syllabus is, of course, completely out of date and is not procurable. I would like to have some assurance from the Deputy Minister that he is going to go into the question of the training of these lads.

Starting with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to Clause 11 (a) I just want to say that it is really not necessary to insert the proposed limitation. I should have liked to accept an amendment in view of the good co-operation there has been but I cannot accept an amendment which, in the light of our experience, is really unnecessary, because as the hon. member knows, and as this provision reads, we are taking this step on the recommendation of the Apprenticeship Board. In the first place the Apprenticeship Board recommended that the period should be extended by a year. In regard to this extension of one year I just want to add, although the matter has not been raised here, that it is the intention that it can be extended by a year in the case of five-year contracts if the apprentice does not pass, but in the case of four-year and three-year contracts the period of apprenticeship will be extended accordingly by less than a year. It is unnecessary to insert that in the legislation because the clause provides that the Minister can extend the period on the recommendation of the board and after consultation with the committee concerned, with due consideration to the provisions of sub-section (4). That has always been the custom; the old provision read that the Minister could determine the period of apprenticeship. The Minister has never yet applied that in an arbitrary manner and there is no reason to believe that the period will be extended beyond one year, because in that case it has to be done with the consent of the Apprenticeship Board and after consultation with the Apprenticeship Committee, which is, of course, very improbable. I therefore want to ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana whether he will not withdraw his amendment. We have considered this matter beforehand. It is really unnecessary to insert the proposed provision. As far as the extension of the period is concerned it will not be necessary for anybody to serve longer than one additional year. I may perhaps just say that the Trade Union Council was the only body which objected to this. The Confederation of Labour felt so strongly on this point of extending the period that they said that if we did not include it in the Act we might just as well drop the entire Bill, because they regard this extension as the very crux of the whole Bill.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) wanted some information in connection with a few other matters. Inter alia, he wanted to know who would decide what was a “sound reason”. The Apprenticeship Committee is, of course, the body who will decide that. The apprenticeship inspectors whom we are now appointing will probably also express an opinion in that regard but it is a matter where an appeal lies right up to the Registrar. There is no danger, therefore, that the decision will be an arbitrary one. The hon. member for Umbilo also wanted to know whether these new benefits would only apply to new apprentices or to everybody. No, as soon as the Act comes into operation they will be applicable to all indentured apprentices. The hon. member also wanted to know what the reason was for the provision of 21 days in para, (j)· The reason is this that it usually takes approximately two or three weeks after the test before the notices are forwarded to the apprenticeship committees concerned and before the matter is administratively finalized. In view of this delay the Apprenticeship Board felt that it should be fixed at 21 days. The hon. member also wanted to know what the position would be if the technical college reported unfavourably. In this regard I just want to say that if such an unfavourable report is received about an apprentice in respect of any term of the year, that will, of course, not count against him for all time. If he obtains better results he will naturally receive credit for that and he will be able to continue his studies during the employer’s time.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) raised an interesting point in connection with the block system. In terms of the existing legislation apprentices can be trained as they are at the moment or they can only attend classes at a technical college for three or six months. That is a system which I personally like very much. The hon. member referred to the Department of Education, Arts and Science and I can only tell him that the Department feels very strongly about this matter. As a matter of fact the Department recently made representations to me in my capacity as Deputy Minister of Education and advocated very strongly that apprentices should be sent to technical colleges in groups or blocks to undergo intensive training for three or six months. A great deal can be said for that. I think that will be the ideal system if it could be introduced. The only disadvantage is that you will be withdrawing a large number of apprentices from industry and that may cause disruption. I personally think that if this measure does not yield the desired results we envisage in regard to the better training of apprentices, the direction advocated by the hon. member will be the direction in which we shall have to move, namely to arrange for apprentices to undergo intensive training for three or six months in groups.

In view of what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, I do not propose to press my amendment. I thought it was advisable to highlight the position because of the difficulties which the Minister has had with certain trade unions. The other point that I want to discuss now is the question which the Minister has replied to in part as a result of the comments made by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). It arises out of the fact that the Minister is now providing that an appearance who is successful in passing the trade test will be paid as an artisan after 21 days from the date on which such test is held. I do not quite know what the position is in relation to a contract which expires before notification has been given, whether or not an apprentice has passed the trade test. The Deputy Minister will appreciate that he can only extend the period of apprenticeship if that apprentice is still in the employ of an employer, and in order to give effect to the provision that we are now considering whereby an apprenticeship can be extended by one year, it would appear to me that the Minister should have some power to compel an employer to retain in his employment an apprentice who has undergone a practical test until such time as the results of the compulsory test are made known. It is important that we should have clarity on this point in view of the fact that it is the intention to extend the period of the apprenticeship contract by one year in the event of failure of the practical test. I am not quite sure that the Deputy Minister has the power to compel an employer to retain such an apprentice in his employment until the result of the test is made known. I think we should have clarity on that point.

I am afraid we have not got the power to compel an employer to keep such an apprentice in his employment after the expiry of that period. It is true that he will have to receive the wages of an artisan from the date on which he passes the compulsory test. I have just received a note from the Department and according to this note the employers were in favour of the suggestion put forward by the hon. member but the trade unions opposed it. They said that it would lead to difficulties. In any case we have not got the power, in terms of the legislation, to force an employer to keep such a person in his employment after the completion of his compulsory test. If, however, the employer wishes to keep him in his service, he has to pay him full artisan wages from the moment he has passed his test.

What if he fails?

If he fails the compulsory practical test, then he has to go on for another year and during that year he will receive 70 per cent of the artisan wage.

And if he dismisses him in that year?

No, he cannot be dismissed.

The issue that I am concerned about is this: It often happens that the results of the practical test are made known after the apprentice has completed his period of apprenticeship in terms of his contract. Before the Department has had the opportunity of extending his apprenticeship for a further year, the employer may have dismissed him in terms of the existing contract. Surely the Minister should have the power to compel the employer to keep the apprentice in his employment until such time as the result of his test is made known to the employer, otherwise you are not going to be in a position to impose the further period of training.

The point made by the hon. member is quite a reasonable one. His point is that if the apprentice fails the compulsory test, he does not want him dismissed because he still has to serve the additional year. In that case we will have to have the power to see to it that his employer keeps him in his employment.

If he is still serving his apprenticeship.

Yes. It can be done by regulation.

I think if we are going to give the Minister the power to compel the employer to retain such an apprentice in his employment until the result of the trade test is known, then we will have to make provision for it in this particular clause, and in that case it will be necessary to move a further amendment.

I want to support the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) namely that the employer should be obliged to retain the apprentice who has failed the compulsory trade test in his final year for the extended period of his service. In the case of a five-year contract that period is extended by one year. Let us just again take the case of a man who serves a five-year apprenticeship. Such an apprentice has an opportunity of writing a voluntary test before his five-year period lapses. If he does not pass that test he has to write a compulsory test at the end of the five years. If he passes the test artisan status is immediately conferred upon him. If he fails that test he is obliged to serve a further year as an apprentice. In other words, his contract is extended by a year. The apprentice is bound; he has to serve a further year before he obtains artisan status but the employer is not bound to keep him. I think that is an immoral contract because it binds the one party (in this case the apprentice) but not the other party (in that case the employer). I think the employer should also be bound. Let me just add this: Just think, Sir, in what an embarrassing and difficult position it can place such an apprentice if the employer is not obliged to keep him on for that additional period which he has to serve. It means that if he fails that test and he wants to acquire artisan status by the effluxion of time he has to serve a further year but it may happen that the opportunity is not accorded him to serve that year with his employer. It may be that other employers do not want to employ him either. That means that that apprentice will never acquire full artisan status by the effluxion of time. I think that will be immoral. I do not believe, as was suggested by the hon. member for Umhaltuzana, that the solution is that the hon. the Minister should be given special powers in that regard. Mr. Chairman, 1 contend that a condition can be inserted in the apprentice’s contract compelling the employer to keep him in employment until he has served that additional period. In the case of a five-year trade it is one year; in the case of a four-year trade it will be shorter and in the case of a three-year trade it will be even shorter. The employer should in any case be obliged to keep him on until he has served that period.

While I am on this subject I want to refer to something else. During the second-reading debate I referred to the fact that during the 1962 recess I discussed this Bill with employers in my constituency who train apprentices. They actually went much further. They pleaded for it that no apprentice should acquire artisan status merely by the effluxion of time. They feel that he should continue to study until he passes the compulsory test. They went further and pleaded, for it that the exact period of his apprenticeship should be noted on the certificate which he ultimately receives. They also asked that the name of the firm with whom he served his apprenticeship should be noted on it. They further asked that his certificate should be endorsed as to whether or not he passed a trade test or not. Finally they asked that the success which he achieved in his theoretical and technical examinations should also be noted on that certificate. These suggestions emanate from people who have years of experience in the training of apprentices. I am submitting them to the Minister for what they are worth and I should like to hear his views in this regard. I fully agree, however, that the employer should be obliged to keep an apprentice until he has acquired full artisan status.

I think the provision of this clause which deals with the trade test is one of great importance. We listened with interest to the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the queries which we raised, particularly in regard to the question of obtaining artisan status after a person has successfully done his trade test and the position of the apprentice who fails to pass that test. In regard to this question of the trade test I think a great deal of the difficulty could be overcome if the hon. the Deputy Minister would ensure that these trade tests are held with an adequate time factor so as to ensure that the results of those tests are received prior to the date of termination of the five-year period of apprenticeship. If that is achieved I think the obligation of the employer to retain the apprentice during the extra period of one year should he fail the trade test would become automatic because that apprentice will still be serving his apprenticeship in terms of the extended period of apprenticeship.

That leads me to the whole question of the trade tests. And I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he has in mind any revision of these trade tests. Because if we refer to the latest report of the Department of Labour we find that the percentage of passes, according to the latest available figure for 1961, is 20.32 per cent in respect of the over-all figure. In some of the designated trades such as metal engineering it is only 15 per cent. Some have even a worse record in regard to the percentage of passes. I realize that these are the voluntary trade tests and I understand that this compulsory trade test at the end of the five-year period will be of a practical nature. Although there is a slight improvement in the percentage of passes it was only 14.9 per cent in 1959. The whole question of the standard of these trade tests is vitally important, particularly as it affects those persons who are already serving their apprenticeship. The hon. the Deputy Minister said earlier on that this Bill, when it becomes law, would be applicable to all apprentices. There were some 25,451 contracts in operation during 1961. So these apprentices who have their contracts for a five-year period will not benefit to any great extent from the improvement in training such as the keeping of log books and the appointment of inspectors and the more selective recruitment of apprentices which I believe will in the ultimate end mean a higher percentage of passes in the trade tests. The present apprentices will hardly benefit by those improvements in training. I cannot see, therefore, how there can be any immediate great improvement in regard to the passing of these trade tests. Consequently a large number of the present apprentices are going to find that their term of apprenticeship is going to be extended for a period of a year. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give consideration to it that this provision should apply to those persons who have been apprenticed from a certain date. I think as far as the present apprentices are concerned, I think it is hardly fair to expect them to pass a trade test with any high degree of success when they did not have the benefit of the improved system of training. I do ask that the Minister should give sympathetic consideration to the question of the standard of the trade tests and see to it that those who already have a contract will not be unfairly discriminated against because of the provisions of this clause.

I want to raise a point in connection with Clause 11 (g), that is the changed conditions of apprenticeship. The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that these changed conditions are going to be made applicable to all those who are under a contract of apprenticeship at the present time. I think it is quite clear that unless the Deputy Minister is in a position to issue an instruction through the Apprenticeship Board it is not going to be possible physically to amend some 25,000 contracts in a short space of time. The result will be that some of the beneficial clauses are not going to apply in respect of apprentices because their contracts will not have been amended in time. I cannot see that there can be any legal force upon the employer unless the apprenticeship contract has been amended before the apprentice actually concludes his apprenticeship period in terms of that contract. I think it is essential that the Minister should indicate quite clearly what he is going to do in respect of how existing apprenticeship contracts are going to be amended in a short while. It is an important issue. There are many apprentices who are due to undergo their final trade tests in the next few months and any uncertainty is not good for the apprentice or for the employer. Let me give an illustration. There are many apprentices throughout the country who at the present time anticipate that they are going to become artisans merely by the effluxion of time. They are not taking a great deal of trouble about passing their trade test because of the present conditions of their contract. You can have this position that in respect of apprentices in the same workshop the one will have his contract amended whereby he will have to serve six years and the other one will become an artisan merely by the effluxion of time because of the fact that his contract has not been amended. That will be an undesirable state of affairs particularly in the case of large workshops where you have apprentices who are going to finish their training at the same time. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should give the Committee an indication of what his intention is in regard to the amendments which are going to be brought about to existing apprenticeship contracts, whether that can be done within a short period of time or whether he intends issuing some blanket instruction by way of the Apprenticeship Board that no apprentice can conclude his apprenticeship unless he complies with the provisions of this Bill when it becomes law.

I want to reply to the plea made by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) in support of the plea made earlier in the debate by the hon. members for Umlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) and Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) namely that the employer should be obliged to keep the apprentice who has failed his compulsory test and who has to serve a further year in his service. I want to assure hon. members that we shall see to it that that is done.

As hon. members know the wages and conditions of service are laid down in the apprenticeship contract and thus it eventually reaches the Minister who has to approve of it. It is very clear that it was the wish of the Apprenticeship Board that these improved conditions should be included. The attitude which I and the Department adopt is that where an apprentice has to serve an additional year, it should be laid down in his apprenticeship contract that he should remain with the same employer. I want to assure hon. members that we shall see to it that that is done. Hon. members need not, therefore, be concerned about that.

As a result of discussions he had had in his own constituency with employers, the hon. member for Boksburg also raised the question that artisan status should not be acquired by the effluxion of time. He said there were employers in his constituency who felt that the old arrangement should be done away with completely and that a person should qualify as an artisan. Hon. members who have studied the report of the Apprenticeship Board, will know that employers made strong representations that that should be done. In other words, the person should be sufficiently competent to qualify as an artisan and that he should not simply acquire it by way of serving an additional year. As I said in my second reading speech, although we regard this as the ideal way to qualify, it is nevertheless accepted as a compromise in this legislation that we accept the principle of effluxion of time on this condition that it will be after a year. I think the aoprentice will have an opportunity, in the additional year which he has to serve, to concentrate in such a way on his weak points that he will qualify as an artisan at the end of that additional year.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) raised the question of compulsory tests. He wanted to know when they would be held. What we will suggest when the conditions are prescribed is that those compulsory tests must be held, say, three months before the contract expires so that when the five year contract expires, the test will already have been written and it will not be necessary for him to serve a day longer than the five years. The hon. member also raised the question of the high percentage of failures. I am afraid that is true. That is one of the reasons why we have this far-reaching legislation before us. I do think, however, that the abolition of the theoretical tests will assist greatly in future to increase the number of apprentices who pass. The fact that they will in future be judged on their practical work will, I think, overcome that difficulty.

The hon. members of Umhlatuzana and Umbilo asked whether these improvements would apply to those apprentices who were already serving apprenticeships. That will be taken into proper account under this new system. It is not the intention to amend existing contracts. The main idea is that we do not want to do any injustice to those apprentices who are already indentured. These conditions will be applied in such a way that they will not adversely affect those apprentices who are serving apprenticeships at the moment. You can rest assured, Sir, that that will be the spirit in which we shall administer this legislation.

I should like to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister’s views on the request of the employers that certain data should be shown on the certificates.

The question of the certificates to be issued is a matter which we have considered thoroughly. That was actually one of the main points of criticism which the Trade Union Council had against the extension of the period. They said that if a person had to serve an additional year that would be inserted in his apprenticeship contract and that when a prospective employer of that apprentice looked at his apprenticeship contract subsequently and noticed that he had to service an extra year he might possibly come to the conclusion that he was a lead-swinger. In other words that a stigma would attach to such a contract. We eventually decided, against the wishes of the employers, to meet the apprentices. If necessary we shall issue two certificates in which no reflection will be cast on the apprentices. It may be argued that if an apprentice passed within five years that is a fact which should be made known but on the other hand why should the person who took six years to fulfil a five year contract be penalized for the rest of his life? We shall consequently not comply with that request of the employers namely to endorse their contracts to that effect; on the contrary we want to lean over to the other side and that is that, if necessary, we shall issue two types of certificates; one in respect of the person who fulfilled his contract in five years, namely a certificate of full artisanship, and one in respect of the person who took six years, namely, a type of proficiency certificate. The whole intention is to conceal the fact that he took an additional year. We think it is unreasonable to penalize a person for the rest of his life because of that. In this respect we are not satisfying the employers but I think we shall ultimately give the greatest measure of satisfaction by providing them with artisans who will not have this cloud hanging over them for the rest of their lives. I think this will lead to it that the employers will have a much more satisfied labour force.

I wish to withdraw my amendment with the leave of the Committee.

Amendment withdrawn.

I think the information which the hon. the Deputy Minister has just given us is not going to be satisfactory as far as the apprentices are concerned. I am thinking of the fourth and fifth year apprentices at the present time. If their contracts are not going to be amended at all I think they will rightly assume that at the end of their fifth year they will be artisans and that they will not be called upon to serve a further year. I do not see how the hon. the Deputy Minister can make an apprentice serve a further year if his contract of apprenticeship has not been amended. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should consider this aspect very carefully and perhaps give a more definite decision on the matter in the Other Place. They are either going to comply with the new conditions or they are not going to comply with them. By leaving the matter in the air, I feel, is not going to be in the interests of either the apprentices or their employers.

Another point I wish to raise is this: The statistics given to us by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield), I think, reflects the position in respect of apprentices who have failed. Has the hon. the Deputy Minister got any statistics to show how many failed the practical test? In other words, we will have a far better idea of the number that will fall under the sixth year provisions if we knew how many have failed the theoretical examination and how many the practical examination.

The final point I want to make is in respect of the general improvements to be brought about. The one which I feel it is necessary to consider in particular is where the apprentice’s wage is going to be based on a percentage of the artisans rate of pay. I do not want to go into the question of wages as such. But the Minister will appreciate that unless he is in a position to get this machinery going rapidly he will not have a wage rate for those apprentices who have to serve a sixth year. There is no wage rate laid down for them. I think here again there should not be any uncertainty. We should like to learn from the Minister how he is going to enforce these new provisions in respect of existing contracts.

One of the characteristics of the Apprenticeship Act is that it is really an enabling measure. We are creating the machinery whereby these improvements can be effected. It is the task of the Apprenticeship Committees and the Apprenticeship Board to take the initiative and to incorporate these conditions. The question which concerns the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), namely, whether these new improvements will immediately come into force in the case of apprentices serving their apprenticeship at the moment will depend on the speed at which those Apprenticeship Committees can amend those contracts to conform with these proposed changes. The Department of Labour will do everything it possibly can to get the relevant Apprenticeship Committees to finalize this matter as quickly as possible, in other words, to change their contracts so that they will conform to the recommendations of the Apprenticeship Board. The most important improvements which I raised in my second reading speech are of course not contained in this legislation, as the hon. member has rightly said, but they appear in the report of the Apprenticeship Board. We from our side will encourage these Apprenticeship Committees to incorporate them as quickly as possible in their amended conditions. As a matter of fact, a start has already been made. The other day I read what an important industry in Johannesburg has done to insert the new wage conditions. I have no doubt that industries on their part will do their best to insert them.

The hon. member wanted to know how many apprentices failed in their theoretical work. I am afraid I do not have those figures available. The hon. member will know from his own experience and from the report of the Apprenticeship Board that a large percentage of apprentices fail as a result of the theoretical test. That has been the experience of the technical colleges and of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. I think, therefore, that one is entitled to say that in view of the fact that their final test will in future only be a practical test the percentage of passes will be very much higher. I have no doubt about it that this measure will assist in reducing the number of failures.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

Clause 12 (5) (a) deals with the registration of prospective apprentices. It reads—

My reading of this is that a youth will have to be registered with the Department of Labour as a prospective apprentice otherwise an employer will not be legally entitled to engage him. If that is the position I think the Minister should indicate what he feels about the proviso contained in the report of the National Apprenticeship Board on page 58, paragraph 79. It says—

In other words, the board recommends that, as far as the employer is concerned, there should be the right to engage an apprentice whether or not the youth has satisfied the Department of Labour regarding his credentials as a prospective apprentice. We on this side of the House feel that the way the clause is worded no youth can be apprenticed unless he is first registered as a prospective apprentice. That is a strict interpretation of this clause. To try to make it less rigid I want to move an amendment to Clause 12 as follows—

The Clause will then read—

The purpose of the amendment is this, Mr. Chairman, that if a youngster is registered as a workseeker and an employer wishes to engage him as an apprentice he may do so. The employer may find as the clause now stands that he cannot engage a youngster who has not undergone the aptitude test prescribed by the Department or because he has not got the necessary educational qualifications. The recommendation of the National Apprenticeship Board indicates that despite these two provisions an employer should still have the right to employ such a youngster, if he so desires, as his apprentice. If he fails to gain recognition as a prospective apprentice, but he is registered as a workseeker, I think the position will be much more satisfactory from the employer’s point of view. I want to ask the Minister therefore to consider the amendment which I have moved. He may, of course, have information of an administrative type to indicate that there is no intention to limit future apprentices to only those who are in fact registered as prospective apprentices.

I also wish to address the hon. Minister in regard to this paragraph (5), because as it stands here in the Bill it says—

I think this is a rather severe provision in this clause, because, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana pointed out, the report and recommendations of the committee of the National Apprenticeship Board which investigated our apprenticeship system had a term of reference, viz. No. 5, which was dealt with by the Committee and they made important recommendations, and suggested certain provisions and provisos in their recommendations. A further proviso was the following—

1. 79. (b) That a prospective apprentice in possession of the minimum educational qualification of Std. VII or an equivalent certificate should compulsorily undergo aptitude tests, and in the event of failure, an employer shall retain the right to indenture such prospective apprentice, provided his continued employment after one year’s apprenticeship shall be reviewed in consultation with the apprenticeship committee concerned and the inspector appointed for the area in which he is indentured.

Then it goes on in paragraph (c) of this same section and says—

So you see. Sir, the intention here in this recommendation I think is wider than what we have before us in this clause, and if you take into consideration that in spite of the fact that the Juveniles Affairs’ Boards, or what is known as the vocational services, conduct these aptitude tests, one must also bear in mind that they are not always infallible, although we acknowledge the fact that with the advancement of aptitude tests they are now recognized as a scientific means of judging a person’s aptitude for a certain designated trade, as this case may be; however, an important factor is that with our expanding industrial development in South Africa, one of the most disturbing features of the last report of the Department of Labour shows that there has been a steady decline in the intake of apprentices. For instance in 1959, some 7,556 contracts were registered; in 1960, the number was 7,017, and the latest available figures for 1961 show 6,525. So there is a steady decline in the intake of apprentices, and likewise the number of apprentices in respect of whom contracts are in operation, as I mentioned earlier now stands at some 25,000 whereas only two years ago it was 27,607, nearly 28,000. So you see, Sir, with the industrial development taking place in South Africa, it is absolutely imperative that there should be an increase in the intake of apprentices, and I feel that with this particular provision, desirable as it might be in placing in the correct designated trade the aptitude-tested apprentice, I feel that in its present form in this clause it could severely restrict the number of apprentices entering into apprenticeship contracts. I had in mind some of the trades where a lower standard of education has been recognized and accepted by employers. Some of the trades in the building industry for instance, particularly in the Province of Natal, have a severe shortage of apprentices, and in terms of this recommendation by the National Apprenticeship Board, they wish to raise the minimum standard of education from Std. VI to Std. VII, in addition there is the aptitude test and they must be registered with the Department of Labour, and I believe that that is going to adversely affect our position in regard to the intake of apprentices, although I admit that it might raise the standard of the youths who are being accepted as apprentices. But as it stands in the Bill at the present time, and in this clause it would appear that it will restrict the intake of apprentices. So I would like to ask the hon. Deputy Minister whether it is the intention that the aptitude test and the minimum educational qualification is to be raised, and, if so, in his opinion what steps should be taken to increase the intake of apprentices so that a larger number of youths are attracted to our industries which require these apprentices urgently. As far as our juvenile affairs boards are concerned, as far as the aptitude tests are concerned, I know that certain degree of success is being achieved. The Secretary of the Juvenile Affairs Board in Durban, carried out a very careful after-care survey and study of the follow-up of apprentices who had been placed in various trades, and he found that a large number of these apprentices were quite happy in their trade and were making satisfactory progress. However, I do feel that as it stands in the Bill at the present time it is too narrow and is going to restrict our intake of apprentices.

The ideal with regard to the registration of apprentices and the aptitude test I think is sound, but one has to look further than that. I am thinking of the boys on the platteland, the boy who comes from Pofadder or from Springbok up in the North West Cape, some 300-odd miles from Cape Town, or a boy on the platteland of the Transvaal. What happens to these youngsters? Where do they go? Does the boy on the platteland of the Transvaal have to go all the way to Johannesburg to become registered and to undergo an aptitude test and does the boy in the Cape have to come all the way from Pofadder down to Cape Town to be registered and tested? As the hon. member for DurbanCmbilo (Mr. Oldfield) says there is no doubt about it that if we enforce this particular clause, there is going to be a considerable fall-off in the number of apprentices. No matter how sound it looks on paper, and how good the object in view may be, it will affect these boys in the rural areas. In nine cases out of ten their parents are not in a financial position to send them to town or to keep them there whilst undergoing these tests. The result will be that they will fall by the way and we will lose these youngsters. This applies particularly to the motor-trade where we do recruit a considerable number of apprentices in the platteland for the industry.

Sub-section (5) (a) has been inserted in this Bill at the specific request of the Apprenticeship Board and I think I should read it once again because hon. members have referred to other sub-sections of the recommendations but not to the relevant one. It is Section 79 (a) The Board accordingly recommends that all prospective apprentices should register with the Department of Labour to be placed with suitable employers in the trade of their choice, having regard to the outcome of aptitude tests to be conducted by the Department; provided that the right of an employer to indenture such apprentices as he chooses be not affected.

In the first instance, therefore, 5 (a) was inserted in the Bill on the specific recommendation of the Apprenticeship Board. Hon. members opposite, however, need have no fear that we shall apply it in any unreasonable manner. In practice it will work this way that if that youngster who wishes to become an apprentice cannot, in the first, register with the Department of Labour but approaches an employer direct—he may be his cousin or his nephew or whatever the case may be—and the employer takes him on, that employer will be allowed to indenture him on condition, firstly that he tells him to register with the Department of Labour, which is surely not an unreasonable request. If it is a case where the youngster is in the platteland, as the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) has said, he need not get on the train and travel 300 miles to Cape Town to register with the Department of Labour. He can go to the local magistrate’s office where all the forms of the Department of Labour are available; he fills in a form and he registers himself as a prospective apprentice. That form is then sent to the head office of the Department. That youngster is not, therefore, prejudiced in that respect. He is employed but as the recommendation says: If that youngster does not pass the aptitude test prescribed by the Department of Labour, the employer may still employ him but at the end of a year that apprentice must write an aptitude test and if it appears after a year that he is indeed suitable to carry on in that direction, he obviously carries on. If he is not suitable his case will be thoroughly considered by the Apprenticeship Committee under whose jurisdiction he falls. There is, therefore, nothing unreasonable about this matter. The whole object of this provision is to canalize our youngsters in those directions in which they are best suited. It is of no avail indenturing youngsters as motor mechanics if they have not the slightest aptitude for it or the slightest knowledge about it, but merely because they happen to live at, say, Pofadder, or wherever it may be and have the opportunity to start life as such; they are then going in a totally wrong direction. One of the main principles of this Bill is to utilize the talents of our young people in the right direction. That is why the aptitude tests are of such great value and in this way they can be of great benefit to the apprentice.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana moved an amendment which seeks to add the word “workseeker”. I do not think that is a necessary amendment either, because if a person registers with the Department of Labour surely he himself has to decide whether he wants to become an apprentice or whether he is an ordinary workseeker. That is a matter on which he has to decide. If he cannot or does not want to become an apprentice I take it he will not register himself as an apprentice.

I really do not think that the amendment of the hon. member can assist us in any way in this respect.

I think the recommendation as read out by the hon. Minister is quite clear. It says that all prospective apprentices should register with the Department of Labour to be placed with suitable employers in the trade of their choice, having regard to the outcome of aptitude tests conducted by the Department.

Now if I understand the Minister correctly, it will be possible for a youth to be registered as a prospective apprentice before he takes the aptitude test. Is that correct?

Yes.

If that is the position, then my amendment is not necessary, but reading the clause, one would assume that they would only be registered as prospective apprentices after successfully passing an aptitude test. I think that was the intention behind the recommendation, but if the hon. Minister says that it is the other way round, then of course my amendment is not necessary. I hope that the Minister’s interpretation will be found to be the legal one.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. Eaton was withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I should like to raise with the hon. Deputy Minister a point that I took at the second reading, viz. the manner in which compulsory military service affects the period of apprenticeship and the conditions of apprenticeship of these young men we are discussing here this evening. To fix our ideas, Sir, I wish to move an amendment—

The substance of the amendment is that the commission recommended that when a young man was called up for compulsory military service, his first period of service at that time was four months, and that that period of military service should be regarded as leave, and therefore taken as part of his apprenticeship period. But now the period of compulsory military service is considerably longer, it is in fact approximately nine months, and my proposal is that the full period of nine months should be taken as leave. We are constantly saying that our young men should be prepared to accept conditions of military service. Some of them are balloted and are called up for service, others are not. Should the man who is balloted and called up for service be placed at a disadvantage compared to his young friend who is not called up, or the young man who does not wish to undertake a period of military service? That is the first point. Now during the second reading I raised with the Minister a point to which I think he has given careful consideration: It may be possible for example in the case of an apprenticed electrician to give him his military service in a department of the Forces where he can carry on his apprenticeship or gain valuable experience in his apprenticeship training. He could go to the transport department if he were a fitter, and so on. I appeal to the hon. the Minister not to place these young men who are called up for military service at a disadvantage. We in this House, on the Government side, and on the Opposition side, have undertaken to strain every nerve to see that the young men who are called up will have a fair deal in peacetime as they had in war. I make this appeal to the hon. Deputy Minister.

The point I want to make in regard to 13 (b) is that I think that this particular sub-section (b) goes very far. It says here—

There are penalties if an employer does not carry out this part of the Act and if you read this particular clause it would seem that an employer would have to report to the Apprenticeship Committee every absence from work of an employee, that is military leave and occasional leave. I am certain that the Department when drawing up this clause never intended that employers should be given this additional work of having to report every absence from work of an apprentice. It will be asking too much from the employers. If they do not do so, they are liable to prosecution for not carrying out the Act.

Seeing that this question of absence and the obligation on the part of the employers to report any absence has been raised, I wish to point out that the Bill says “Every employer shall report any absence by an apprentice in his employ from work through whatever cause, other than an absence due to a suspension in terms of Section 28, to the committee concerned, in the prescribed manner within seven days from the date of such absence or the date on which the period of such absence terminated, as the case may be, and the committee concerned shall upon receipt of such notification, advise the registrar thereof”. Where it says “from the date of such absence” or “the date on which he returns” already creates some confusion. Where does the obligation really lie? In that connection, Sir, I wish to refer you to something which I find very peculiar. I refer to the paragraph and the recommendation contained in the report of the Apprenticeship Board in connection with this matter. I refer to page 85b of the report—

But what follows is important—

I think this is a very big difference. It is suggested here that it is only at the end of every fourth quarter that it should be indicated on the quarterly logsheet how many days the apprentice was absent but the Bill provides that it should be reported within seven days. I think there is a mistake somewhere, but it seems to me in any case that this is an anomaly. Or are the employers perhaps obliged to do both, obliged in the first place to report the absence after seven days but also to report at the end of the second quarter? Is that the intention? To place this burden on the: employer of reporting the absence of his apprentices within seven days to the committee; concerned is, I think, wasting his time.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has once again discussed the question of exemption from military training. As I said in my reply to the second-reading debate, the Apprenticeship Board makes recommendations in this respect in its report and those recommendations were made before the period of military training was extended to nine months. To ask that he should be exempt for the whole nine months will, I am afraid, not be in the national interest or in the interest of the apprentice concerned. I do not think we shall be rendering him a service by doing thatThis provision in the legislation is already as wide as it can possibly be. Perhaps it would be just as well that I again draw attention to the fact that this provision reads that exemption will be granted for a period not exceeding four months of the first period and not exceeding three weeks of each subsequent period of such training. I think this is important because I am afraid not enough attention has been given to this so far. In practice it may amount to this that such an apprentice will not only be granted exemption for four months but that he will actually be granted exemption for five and a half months because of the additional three weeks which he is granted every time. That is really a great concession. At a time like the present we are always talking about everybody having to make sacrifices for the safety of the State and I do not think our young men, apprentices included, are excluded when it comes to making sacrifices. They are the young men who are responsible for the future of this country and they have to make their sacrifices pro rata as the rest of the nation has to make them. We feel, therefore, that the 5½-month period is the maximum concession we can make to such an apprentice without on the one hand doing any harm to our industrial development or industries as such and on the other hand doing any harm to the training of the apprentices.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) and the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) both raised the question of the report which must be furnished. I am afraid that it is necessary that this report be furnished because the Department of Labour keeps a very thorough record of these apprentices, a record in which all these permissible and other absences are noted. Surely we are expected to see to it that the apprentices in this country are properly trained. It is the task of the Department of Labour to see to that and we can only fulfil this task properly if we are furnished with reports in regard to absences, and the employers are the indicated people to furnish us with that information. They have to furnish us with a report in respect of absences as well as the quarterly reports. I am afraid, as far as that is concerned, we cannot effect any relaxation because administratively that is essential if we want to provide our apprentices with better training.

I should like to have confirmation of what the hon. the Minister said in reply to the second-reading debate. He has not told us that provision will be made to see to it that when these young men do their military training, they are employed in the trades which they are practising.

Thank you.

I wonder if the hon. Deputy Minister could just enlarge upon one particular point, the provision in this clause which covers the period of training that a recruit will undergo in his first period of military training when he receives these four-month exemptions of the nine months. I would like to ask the Deputy Minister: What is the position in regard to an apprentice who might be called to full-time military service during a state of emergency, such as the last state of emergency that existed. Many of these young men were called up for quite a considerable time on a full-time basis. Is any provision made for that period of time so that it will not be an additional period that they will have to serve their apprenticeship?

The hon. Deputy Minister says that this sacrifice has to be made because we live in such times in which it is necessary. That is the very point, Sir, because what the hon. Minister is doing here is that he is discriminating between one group of apprentices as opposed to another group. He is discriminating against those who are doing their military service. Obviously not all apprentices are called up for compulsory military service. Those apprentices that are called up are balloted, they have no choice. But there are numbers of apprentices who escape. They then get the full benefit, but these men because they are serving are being discriminated against and they have got to serve their additional period of apprenticeship. I submit to the hon. the Minister that that is not an entirely fair way to look upon the matter. At the same time there are other apprentices who because they were not balloted are called to serve in a commando. They are in a more privileged position than the men who have to do their full-time service. He is prejudiced in the sense that he has to serve a longer period of apprenticeship. Is that fair? It is not their fault. They are balloted for. That is what the law provides. His neighbour escapes because his number was not drawn, but he is now discriminated against because he is making the sacrifice to serve his country in that he has to serve a longer period of apprenticeship. If all apprentices were all placed on the same basis in this regard, there would be greater substance in the argument of the hon. Deputy Minister, but that is not the case because all apprentices do not serve in the forces. They only serve if their name is drawn in a ballot. I would ask the hon. Minister therefore to give some reconsideration to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington.

The question of discrimination does not, of course, only apply in respect of apprentices. It applies in the case of every young man in all spheres of life. All those who are called up may feel that they are being discriminated against because they are taken away from their studies or their work. The Exemption Board adopts the attitude, however, that as few apprentices as possible should be called up during the time they serve their apprenticeship. There are many apprentices, however, who report voluntarily and who want to serve in the forces during their period of apprenticeship. I do not think we have any right to interfere in that case and they then have to fall into line with this pattern. I agree with the hon. member that it must be much harder to-day for many of those who have to do military training than for those who do not have to do it. But you find that throughout life. There is no standard pattern for everybody. It is a characteristic of society that some people have to work harder than others, also in the interests of others, and unfortunately we cannot do anything more about this because these four months, which can really be 5½ months, is something which has of course been arranged with the approval of the employers’ organizations. That was also the longest period in respect of which the employers’ organizations were prepared to grant exemption. This measure can only operate smoothly if we have the co-operation of the employers’ organizations and in this regard we have to take them into account.

May I put one point: As I understood it when the hon. Minister introduced the original Defence Act—I think it is on record in Hansard—he stated that in regard to the type of training that will now be given in the nine-month period, those men who had technical knowledge after their preliminary three months’ training would be posted immediately to the units concerned, whether it was an electrician, a mechanic or what have you. They would be posted for further technical training with a unit where they could make use of their particular training. Presumably the apprentice who is called up for nine months will do his three months’ preliminary training and then for the remaining six months will be posted with a unit concerned with the type of training that he received say, as an electrician, and he would be gaining an additional six months’ experience. But now because he has been balloted for, the Minister says he must pay the penalty that he has got to wait a longer period of time as against his other colleague who was apprenticed at the same time as he was before he becomes a fully qualified journeyman, simply because he has done his duty. As the hon. Minister says, a limited number of apprentices will be drawn into the forces, but even so, the forces want technical men and therefore it seems to me quite logical and reasonable that if the hon. Minister is prepared to grant the nine months’ exemption, which is the effect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), there is no loss because that same man would still be getting additional training in the armed forces which may be quite equivalent, or even better, than the type of training he would be getting as an apprentice. His training is not going to suffer. It seems to me very unfair that they have to introduce legislation of this nature in which we say that two men, let us say John Smith and John Able, will be treated differently and that the one who does his military service …

Order! The hon. member has used that argument repeatedly, almost a dozen times.

Sir, I want to emphasize it …

Order! The hon. member has done so.

I would ask the hon. Minister to give serious consideration to this question. If he is not prepared to accept the amendment at this stage, perhaps he can introduce a similar amendment in the Other Place after further consultation with his Department.

I think hon. members are very unreasonable to demand a concession in respect of apprentices which is not made in respect of those other people who have to join the Army for nine months’ training. The apprentices enjoy a concession which the boy who goes to university does not enjoy, nor the person who wants to go and work. The person who has finished his schooling and who wishes to go and work has to do nine months’ service if he is balloted. In other words, he forfeits nine months’ wages and the person who wants to go to university loses a whole year. Here we are giving the apprentice months’ reduction on his apprenticeship which is a great concession. The Exemption Board does not, as far as possible, call up apprentices because they want to give them an opportunity of finishing their apprenticeship.

But the Minister also wants them.

Yes, but the policy is not to call them up as far as possible. I think it is completely wrong on the part of the hon. member for Kensington to demand something for apprentices which is not granted to others.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) has quite rightly pointed out that there are other young persons who are required to undergo their military training and who have to make sacrifices. it is true that most of these sacrifices are financial sacrifices, through the loss of wages or salary, but in the case of the apprentice it is slightly different because his contract of apprenticeship is based on a period of time, and the most important thing he sacrifices is time. However, I have not risen to discuss that matter any further, but to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to the point I raised, whether he can clarify the position in regard to an apprentice’s absence from work due to full-time military service in a state of emergency, such as we had a few years ago. The clause mentions military training, but in an emergency they have to perform military service. I should like to know whether that will affect the period of apprenticeship.

As far as the last request is concerned, I may just say that this legislation deals with normal military training and does not cover a state of emergency. If we were to have another state of emergency and apprentices are called up it will be the duty of the Apprenticeship Committees concerned to submit recommendations to the Apprenticeship Board as far as exemptions are concerned. They will have to take the initiative. It is possible that we may appeal to the committees to consider giving exemptions in this respect but they will have to shoulder the responsibility.

Will the Minister not insert that in sub-section (4)?

I do not like inserting every detail in legislation. This is mainly an enabling measure which gives the committees and the Board the right to prescribe conditions of apprenticeship and then to submit those to the Minister for approval.

I think this is a matter which we can safely leave in the hands of the committees. If there were to be such a state of emergency and the apprentices were withdrawn for months, the Government may appeal to employers to consider meeting their apprentices in this connection, which, I think, covers the position sufficiently. We cannot, however, lay this down in legislation.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Duirant) referred to it that apprentices who join the Army should be trained in the direction in which they are indentured, but as I said to the hon. member for Kensington, it is not possible to place all apprentices in those trades for which they are indentured because sufficient jobs are not available. In other words, there may be many apprentices whom it will be impossible even to place in technical jobs. That cannot, therefore, be used as an argument that we should give them nine months’ exemption. This question of the maximum of five months was considered by the National Apprenticeship Board, and after thorough consideration the Board decided that these four months, plus the extra time which may amount to 5| months, was the maximum period they could allow without jeopardizing the training of the apprentice. This provision is, therefore, completely in line with the views of the Board.

May I just draw the attention of the Minister to one point. It is possible for a youngster to complete his full nine months of training before he becomes an apprentice, and it would appear to me to be unreasonable not to extend the same facility to an apprentice if he is called up as the result of an emergency. I think it is quite clear that the present provisions only refer to a period of military training, but where an apprentice has finished his military training before he starts his apprenticeship and he is called up as the result of an emergency, I think he should get the benefits of this provision.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

This clause provides for the keeping of log books to enable the inspector to determine whether or not an apprentice is getting the training he should get in terms of his contract. I want to make one suggestion to the Minister. When the log book is compiled there should be provision not only for the apprentice to enter the appropriate symbol, as the Minister indicated, but that there should be provision made for his signature and the date. I say this advisedly, because of the experience I have had of a similar type of log book in the Railway Service. I know of apprentices who have been called in to sign their progress reports at the end of the year, and that was the first time they signed it, and they were told to sign it three or four times and to insert the appropriate dates. I think that is wrong. I think they should sign at the appropriate time and put the date so that the Inspector can ascertain from the signature that it was genuinely signed by the apprentice and not by some other person.

This appears to be a very sound suggestion and I welcome it. and I will convey it to the Department with a request that they should consider it.

There is one point here. This clause which makes provision for the log books is welcomed by people who wish to see an improvement in the standard of training of apprentices, so that they might obtain a more comprehensive training. However, the question of the log book should go a little further. The Minister has indicated during the second reading that inspectors will be appointed to examine the records and to see that progress has been made by the apprentice. I should like to ask the Minister whether the inspectors whom he intends appointing will be qualified artisans who will be conversant with the required training, and also whether it will be possible that progress tests as well as progress reports will also be incorporated in that training. So the point is whether the Minister can give an indication of what the qualifications of these inspectors will be and whether the progress tests, which are recommended by a number of trade unions, will also be incorporated.

The qualifications of the inspectors will be determined by the trades they have to inspect. It is obvious that you cannot designate a clerk or an academically trained person as an inspector to supervise apprentices. It will be a prerequisite that he must be an artisan, naturally with the necessary academic background. I am afraid it will not be an easy task to find people like that but that will be our aim.

The hon. member has made a very useful suggestion in connection with the progress reports and in view of the fact that log books and the way they will operate will be provided for by way of conditions, it is a matter to which I shall certainly give my attention.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 22.

Clause 22 deals with the aonlication of wage regulating measures. The Minister will appreciate that to give effect to the new principles which have been recommended by the Board, i.e. that aoprentices should be paid a percentage of the artisan rate, it is important that this principle should be written into the necessary contracts as soon as possible. The fact that the Minister now provides that any wage rate that is laid own in any wage regulating measure will be applicable to any apprentice in that industry is important because it goes part of the way. The other part will be the acceptance of the principle of apprentices being paid a percentage of the artisan rates. All I want to ask the Minister is how long he thinks it will take to get this approved by the Committees so that the apprentices can get the benefit of being paid a percentage of the artisan’s rate of pay.

I am afraid I cannot say precisely how long it will take but what I can say is that once this legislation is on the Statute Book the Department will exert itself to the utmost to ensure that this is carried out as expeditiously as possible. Numerous Committees are already dealing with it. They are aware of the recommendations of the board and after the introduction of this measure in which it was announced, it has been given another push forward. You can rest assured, Sir, that the Department will continually be at these Committees to ensure that these improved wages come into operation as quickly as possible.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 23,

This clause provides for the issue of certificates to apprentices on the termination of their contract, and provides for the form of such certificates. What I want to ask the Minister here, to link up with the earlier question I put to him. is whether in view of the changes brought about by this measure, will apprentices who have already completed their apprenticeship by the effluxion of time, and who have passed their practical trade test, be entitled to get a certificate to that effect so that there will not be any discrimination against them, as compared with those who take the trade test after this Bill becomes an Act? In other words, I want the apprentices who have passed the trade test but who failed to qualify theoretically to obtain a certificate.

I am afraid this will make great demands on our administration. I said during the second reading debate that since this Act was placed on the Statute Book 170,000 apprentices had been trained. It will be an untenable task to issue certificates to all those people who have already finished their apprenticeships. As a matter of fact the issue of these certificates which we envisaged will by itself be an enormous task. The Department has informed me that it will be necessary for them to appoint a few additional officials simply to issue certificates to those apprentices who will in future qualify under this Act With the best will in the world therefore. I cannot undertake to make it of retrospective effect so as to include those apprentices who are already qualified.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 24.

Clause 24 will enable artisans to be trade-tested and to be supplied with a certificate to that effect if they are successful. The question I want to put to the Minister is this. How many training establishments are there still in existence in respect of the Training of Artisans Act? My information is that there is only one left which is still operating, and that is in the Cape. I do not know whether that is true, but if it is, is it the intention that an artisan who wishes to obtain a certificate, that he must come to the Cape to be trained and trade-tested, whereas in the past he could do so on the Rand and in Durban?

They do not go to the centre where they are tested for training, but to do a test. Some will have to come to Westlake in the Cape Province for training and others will have to go to Olifantsfontein where the trade test is taken. There are no facilities anywhere else for these tests. I think the concession we are making here to those people who are due to qualify and who could not do such a test, this concession which enables them do a proficiency test, is so great that that person can at least make the sacrifice and go to a centre for it.

I was informed that Westlake was the only place.

No, Olifantsfontein is where they do the test and they get their training at Westlake.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move as an amendment—

The object of this amendment is to give the parents or the children an opportunity of adapting themselves to the new circumstances which will be created. I realize, of course, that the Minister will not say in December, for example, that compulsory education will be introduced in January, but that he will give sufficient notice. We know, however, that in practice it can give rise to many difficulties if the parents cannot adapt themselves to the new circumstances, and that is why we ask that people should not be prosecuted within the first six months. I think this is a practical suggestion which the Minister can accept.

I want to come back to the amendments of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) with regard to the date 1970. I am sorry the hon. member for Malmesbury is not present, because he indicated that there is no need for the Minister to accept the amendment because the United Party failed to do its duty in 1946. It was an argument which no one accepted as valid, and I do not propose to pursue it at all. But it is absolutely essential, in my opinion, that there should be a time stipulated in this clause because of the failure to introduce compulsory Coloured education except in certain areas. Since 1946, the time of the United Party and seven years after the Botha Commission, which recommended that there should be compulsory education tor Coloureds, nothing has yet been done. My point is that unless you have a date fixed, the Minister will find it almost impossible to introduce it as the Act now reads, because it says the Minister can only bring it in if he is satisfied that there is sufficient and suitable school accommodation. My view is that there never will be sufficient school accommodation unless this Government is forced to spend a certain amount of money to build new schools. We know that to-day the school buildings are insufficient even to house the children who want to go to school without being forced to attend. If the Minister has to wait until that backlog has been overcome, how much longer will it take before compulsory education is introduced? The Minister should not refuse this amendment to insert the date 1970. This is merely a nebulous clause which means nothing, and I repeat that the Coloured people were told that one of the conditions of the transfer of their education to the Department of Coloured Affairs was that compulsory education would be introduced. But under this clause that is only a hope. If the Minister wishes to show his good faith to the Coloureds in regard to compusory education, he will accept this amendment. It binds him to nothing more than to try to overcome the backlog in school buildings for the children who want to go to school. I hope the Minister will not be obstinate, and will accept this amendment.

I do not know why hon. members want the Minister to bind himself by a specific date. The clause is clear enough as it stands. Compulsory education can be introduced or decided upon by way of regulation and if this amendment is accepted it will mean that the Minister will be unable to introduce compulsory education by way of regulation. As far as I am concerned, this amendment also contains a somewhat discriminatory provision, namely, that preference is given to Coloured children in municipal areas to those in platteland areas. In other words, there will be an inflow of Coloureds from the platteland to the cities. That will be bad, because, as in the case of the Whites, we want to keep those people on the platteland. I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment.

I want to appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. Before doing that I want to express my appreciation of the fact that the Minister said that in Natal, where there has been compulsory education for the Coloureds, he will continue with it. Whether it affects a small number of people or not, when they have enjoyed a privilege it should not be taken away from them.

We also appreciate it that the privilege which has been theirs in the Cape Province over the years will be left undisturbed. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment of the hon. the member for Hillbrow, because it sets an ideal for the Department of the hon. the Minister; and it also sets an ideal for the people concerned. The hon. the Minister has told us that there are not enough schools at the present moment and that there are not enough qualified teachers. But, Mr. Chairman, we all know that it is the will to do things which enables us to do certain things; it is the will to the creation which leads to something being created. This clause makes provision for the compulsory attendance at schools and also lays down penalties which will be incurred if they do not attend schools. But this clause to me is meaningless unless we fix a date. The hon. the Minister said, and perhaps rightly so, that if he accepted the year 1970 as being the year in which compulsory education should be an accepted fact his Department might not be able to provide the necessary amenities. Now, it must be remembered, that only a limited number of people will be involved because the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow restricts it to only certain people. The Minister said that if his Department was not able by 1970 to provide all the necessary facilities it might create a bad impression amongst the Coloured people because they might then be dissatisfied and disappointed. But I would like to put the opposite view. I should like to put the following view to the hon. the Minister, namely, that the putting of a time limit will act as an incentive to the Coloured people to regard this as an accomplished fact, and to think that the Department and the Minister by putting a date for themselves indicate that they strive towards that end. I do believe that by 1970 the Department and the Minister are going to tell us that they have created many more facilities than there are to-day. But if they have not created that in its fullness, the Coloured people, I believe, will accept it as such. The very fact of his acceptance of this amendment will create a feeling of goodwill between the Minister, his Department and the Coloured people. If, on the other hand, the hon. the Minister should feel that 1970 leaves him too short a time, let him then decide on another date—say 1972. If he, before that target is reached, comes to Parliament and tells us that he was not able to provide what was necessary, the Coloured people would have seen the striving on his part and would be with him if they realize that he was not able to fulfil the provisions of this Bill. To me this clause, without a date, is utterly meaningless and therefore I appeal to the Minister to have second thoughts about this.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, Sir, whether he has considered the significance of the phrase in the amendment “within the boundaries of municipalities”. Yesterday the Minister said that he could not accept a date for the introduction of compulsory education because he did not know what the circumstances would be. However, the point “within the boundaries of municipalities” is something which should be stressed. The Minister may be aware of the fact that in the Transvaal Provincial Council the United Party asked the Administration to introduce compulsory education for the Coloured people. We always got the stock answer that, in the case of many Coloured parents, it would impose a hardship on them to compel them to send their children to school. We always had the example quoted to us of somebody living between 20 or 30 miles from a town and school, and of the expense and difficulty these people would have if compelled to send their child to school.

We on this side of the House considered this amendment very carefully. That is why we say that compulsory attendance shall not be applicable to everyone, but only to those resident within the boundaries of a municipality. A municipality, by virtue of the fact that it is a municipality, a fairly large, compact, wellsettled and organized community. You get large ones and you get small ones, but you do not get the analogy of a small isolated Coloured community, living 15 or 20 miles from a school, within a municipal area. There is no such thing. There is also the consideration that in a municipality, apart from the settled population, there is a fairly high density of population, and in consequence there are amenities which usually do not exist outside their boundaries. Let me quote as an example the public transport system. Such a system exists in all the larger municipal areas— whether they are owned by the municipal authorities or by private enterprise is besides the point. The facilities for sending or bringing a child to school, however much these may be lacking in the olatteland areas, are usually not absent within a municipal area. That is why I think that if the hon. the Minister takes another look at this amendment he may reconsider his attitude towards it.

Finally, Sir, I should like to ask him this: He has heard other Ministers in this House setting a target date for the completion of some plan or other. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, for instance, has a five-year plan for the development of the Reserves. The Orange River Scheme, which is running according to some estimates into approximately R40,000,000 and which will virtually create an entirely new world in South Africa, has a target “date” of 30 years. Some of us think this is too long a period, but that is beside the point. When the Minister takes over an existing educational system which he says he wants to build up, what are his difficulties in regard to agreeing to set for himself or his Department, who are imbued with the desire to do the job, a target date, i.e. 1970, to introduce compulsory education at least within the boundaries of every municipality? I should like the hon. Minister to satisfy us on this point.

First amendment proposed by Dr. Steenkamp put and the Committee divided.

AYES—40: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.: Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog. L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney. H. M.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.: Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

NOES—65: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.: Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.: Cloete, J. H.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Diederichs, N.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.: Fouché. J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.: Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.: Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux, P. M. K.: Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Marais. J. A.: Meyer. T.; Mostert, D. J. J.: Mulder, C. P.: Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand. F. J.: Otto, J. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch. J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.: Smit. H. H.: Stander. A. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van der Spuy. J. P.: van der Walt. B. T.; van Eeden, F. J.: van Niekerk. G L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Steenkamp in line 36, amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman in line 37, and amendment proposed by the Minister of Coloured Affairs, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 25,

I move as an amendment—

I am not going to talk at length on this because it is self-explanatory. In short it means that I do not believe that Coloured children should be called upon to pay school fees where White children in similar circumstances do not have to pay such fees. It seems to me to be inequitable that a section of the community which, by and large, is considerably poorer than the White community should be required to pay full fees where White children do not.

This clause has been drafted with the object, not only to make provision for the schools which we are going to take over from the Provincial Administrations, but it also relates to schools which are administered under other laws and which will be incorporated by way of this Bill. I refer, for example to technical training, technical colleges and continuation classes. Where there is free education at the moment we intend leaving that as it is. The fees for which provision is made here are the fees paid at technical colleges and continuation classes. These cannot, however, be specified otherwise you will be bound to charge those fees whereas the time may arrive that you also want to dispense with those. As far as free books are concerned the procedure that will be followed—this can be laid down in the regulations—will be that people who cannot pay, will be assisted, in terms of the clause which deals with material assistance, to acquire the books. Those Coloured parents who are able to pay for the books, however, will have to do so just as in the case of White parents. I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 26,

On Clause 26, I should like to move the amendment I have given notice of in respect of this clause. It is a simple textual amendment—

I accept it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 27,

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this clause means that the State can virtually expropriate property which has been donated to a school even on the understanding that should the State take over such a school that property shall revert to some other person. The wording of this clause seems to me to be wide enough to make that possible. I shall therefore be very glad to have an assurance from the hon. the Minister that there is no such intention in this clause. However, as I said, it seems to me that this clause is wide enough to enable the State to have vested in itself, virtually to expropriate, but certainly to have vested in itself, properties which may have been donated to schools under, for example, a trust deed on the condition that such properties in the event of the State taking over the schools concerned shall go to somebody else. They must certainly not remain under the State. I think it will be quite wrong if that will be the position. It will be wrong for the State to override the wishes of donors in that way and I shall therefore be pleased to learn from the hon. the Minister that that is not the intention. I shall be even more pleased to learn that that is not the interpretation which can be put on this clause.

The words, as I said, are wide, because they read—

These words seem to me to be capable of an interpretation that if money has been subscribed and handed over to schools upon the condition that should they be taken over by the State, it shall go to some other body perhaps, that this clause is capable of overriding that condition. That will be a most surprising state of affairs.

Before the Minister answers to the point raised by the hon. member. I should like to ask the Minister to include in his answer another assurance relating to the question of expropriation. I believe that under the common law where the State takes over such buildings, compensation will be paid for it. Since this is not specifically provided for m this clause, I should like the Minister to give us an assurance that when such expropriation takes place …

Order, Order! The question of expropriation is being dealt with under Clause 28.

Clause 27 deals with the take-over of schools by the State. This clause deals with the passing of property and certain obligations to the State—in other words obligations such as mortgages, loans, etc., which will presumably be taken over by the State. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister in this respect particularly as regards church schools, because churches have contributed a great deal to Coloured education—in fact, until very recently, these churches have provided the major part of the educational facilities for State-aided schools. I should like to have the assurance, therefore, that the relevant common law provision is inherent in this clause.

When the Inter-Church Committee met me the other day I explained to them the procedure which we would follow with regard to expropriation. They were fully satisfied with that. This will take place in accordance with the methods of the Department of Lands which are usually followed by all State Departments.

*As far as the hon. member for Pinelands is concerned. I want to tell him that my information is that this is not an over-riding provision, but when it is taken over the Secretary will have to take into account the conditions governing such a donation or bequest and he will have to deal with the property accordingly. That is the only information I can give the hon. member at the moment. The conditions will therefore continue to apply.

I notice from sub-section (2) of this clause that the Secretary will deal with the property in terms of the conditions of the trust, donation or bequest. The particular circumstances to which I have referred, however, is that where there is a condition in a trust deed that where the State takes over a school, the trust moneys will revert to some other body. In other words, those moneys must not remain under the control of the State. It will be accepted that money is often donated on such a condition and I doubt whether the intention is that such moneys should be affected by this legislation.

My Department assures me that my interpretation is correct. Where there is such a case the interpretation of the hon. member will apply. I am prepared, however, to discuss this particular aspect with the legal advisers in order to determine whether that is the correct interpretation.

I notice that sub-section (1; of this clause stipulates “all the property which immediately prior to that date was vested in the governing body of that school Does that mean that they were the trustees before and that, under this clause, they will be removed as trustees without further ado? If that is so, it is a very serious step. Donations to a school have probably been made in the light of the appointment of the trustees which they had at that school. I think the hon. the Minister is introducing a very drastic provision here.

Read sub-section (2) of the clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 30,

I wish to move—

I appreciate that the wording of paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of this clause indicates that appointments will be made by virtue of special knowledge of education for Coloured persons in any province and the Coloured community and with due consideration to the distribution of the Coloured population in the Republic. No specific requirements, however, are being laid down with regard to provincial representation. I consider that due to a diversity of circumstances and conditions it is most important that such a provision should be entrenched in this clause. Doubts have been expressed by some of the Coloured communities in various provinces in regard to this Bill; they are worried about this take-over; they are worried about their education, which they think might now come under remote control. It would be proof of the Minister’s sincerity if he were to accept this amendment, because then the Coloured communities in the various provinces may feel that their interests are being safeguarded. If one considers the different conditions existing in the provinces as far as Coloured education is concerned, strength is added to my argument. I have already said that there exists a great diversity of conditions. In the Transvaal, the Orange Free State and in Natal Coloured students are in a great minority. In the Transvaal the position is further complicated by virtue of the fact that Indians attend some of the Coloured schools and in other cases Coloured attend Indian schools. There is the question of mission schools and the question of hostels. So conditions differ from province to province. The actual amount of money being spent on each Coloured pupil varies from province to province—from R40 odd in the Orange Free State to approximately R70 in the Transvaal.

Under these circumstances I think it is most important that we have this provincial representation. Earlier on the Minister referred to an amendment which was put forward by this side of the House by saying that he would not accept it because he was going by a previous Bill—the Vocational Education Bill— which had a provision in it which he felt was a good one. Now, if consistency is a characteristic of the hon. the Minister, he will, under the circumstances, accept my amendment. I should like to refer him to the National Education Advisory Council Act, in which specific provision has been made for appointment of representatives of the provinces. It provides, inter alia—

There is no suggestion in this particular Bill that reference should be made to the Administrator, but I do believe that a specific provision should be embodied in terms of which individual provinces could have representation.

I am going to move an amendment which will meet the hon. member to a certain extent. At any rate that is as far as I can go. I feel inclined to agree with him to a certain extent with what he said. But I cannot unfortunately accept his amendment as printed. I accordingly move—

This has the aim of ensuring that the representatives of the Department will serve in an advisory capacity. Secondly, I should like to propose—

That will make it clear what the intention is. It is not obligatory, but it will show the direction to a certain extent to which we will move.

I wish to thank the Minister for his gesture. If the position is going to be as he has outlined it, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. Wood was withdrawn.

I have another little amendment on this clause which is of a textual nature. In the Afrikaans version of paragraph (b) of this clause we talk about “die verspreiding van die kleurlingbevolking in die Republiek”. The word “verspreiding” has been translated to the word “spread I do not want to labour this point, but I should just like to point out that one speaks of the spread of a disease, or of middle-age spread, or of sandwich spread, but we cannot use the word in the sense in which it is being used in this context. Here it should read “distribution”.