I should like to explain the position in connection with the matter raised here by the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). I think this is an important matter and I shall be glad if hon. members will listen carefully so that they can get a clear picture of the whole position. I refer to the insertion on pages 18 and 19 of paragraph (1), the power to promulgate regulations. I want to make it clear that the existing Act also provides for authority to frame regulations in this connection. The existing paragraph (1) in the Labour Regulation Act authorizes the making of regulations concerning “the administration of the estates of deceased Native labourers,” but, as stated in the explanatory memorandum, this is really a matter which would fall more appropriately under ordinary departmental legislation concerning estates. The only regulation which has been promulgated in terms of the aforementioned section which provides for the power to promulgate regulations, is regulation 11 of Chapter II of Government Notice 63 of 1959 which provides that the unpaid wages and personal possessions of a deceased Bantu labourer must be handed over by the employer to the local Bantu Affairs Commissioner. We want to be able to extend the scope of this regulation to all Bantu employees instead of merely confining ourselves to this group of Bantu labourers, under the old definition of the term, and that is what we are doing here. We also have to deal with the other cases where Bantu have absconded or where their contracts of service have expired and where it subsequently appears that money is due to them but that they cannot be traced. We want to cover those cases as well. The Native Recruiting Corporation, a body which, as hon. members know, recruits Bantu labour in South Africa, devised a certain system, with the approval of the Department, but there is no legal sanction for that system which, as I say, was devised jointly by the Native Recruiting Corporation and the Department. According to this system all unpaid wages of Bantu labourers employed at the affiliated mines must be sent to the Native Recruiting Corporation, where the money is then kept for 10 years while efforts are made by them to trace the Bantu. In the meantime that money is invested and draws interest, but because it is impossible to divide the interest which is earned on a pro rata basis amongst the thousands of Bantu who in the meantime have not even been traced, the interest, after deducting administration expenses, is used to help needy institutions, thus benefiting the Bantu. There is what is called a Deferred Pay Interest Fund Control Board under the chairmanship of the Director of Bantu Labour. On that board there are also representatives of various bodies, amongst others the Chamber of Mines. Applications to assist institutions are then considered by that body. Then there are also the moneys in respect of the thousands of mineworkers, or the system which is known as the deferred pay system, under which only a small portion of the wages of the labourer is paid to him and the rest is sent to his homeland when his contract expires. But the N.R.C. may not be able to trace these mine labourers either, and this money too is then deposited by the N.R.C. in this fund which is known as the Deferred Pay Interest Fund and kept there for 10 years. This also includes unpaid wages. After the expiry of this period of 10 years the money is then paid over to our Department, and with the machinery at its disposal this Department then continues to make efforts to trace these people, and in the meantime the money is invested with the Public Debt Commissioners. After the expiry of five years the money is then paid over to Revenue. Certain coal-mining groups have a similar system of disposing of the unpaid moneys of their labourers, but then again there are other groups, for example the mines which are not affiliated and industrialists and others, which have no such system. There is no departmental control therefore over the moneys in the hands of those other institutions, or such control as there is is very inadequate, and the aim of these regulation powers is to enable us to cover those cases as well. Let me just say this for the information of hon. members who are so opposed to the idea of differentiating in framing regulations, hon. members like the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) who sits there yawning now instead of listening: Here we have a clear example which illustrates that there are good reasons for differentiation in framing regulations so that provision can be made for the various types of circumstances which prevail in the case of various types of employers. Here we have an example where it would be necessary to differentiate in framing regulations so as to be able to make provision for the different sets of circumstances.

To come back more specifically now to the point raised by the hon. member for Boland I want to point out the following: The Master of the Supreme Court of the Transvaal agreed some years ago already to the method which is being followed at present. Only recently again when the office of the Master was investigated by a team of officials from the Organization and Method Division of the Public Service, it was recommended that the sort of money that we are now talking about should not be paid into the Master’s Guardian’s Fund. The Master too was in favour of the proposition that it should not be paid over to him because it would mean that long lists of names would have to be published in the Government Gazette and the costs connected with the publication of the names would swallow up a certain amount of that money. In any event the Bantu would not read all the Government Gazettes, and after all these years the money would in any case revert to Revenue again. So far the Native Recruiting Corporation and our departmental machinery have achieved a very great measure of success in tracing large numbers of people, even after 10 years, and handing the money over to them. If the money had had to be paid over to the Master immediately, it would not have been possible to do what we did. Incidentally I just want to point out that a considerable amount of bookkeeping would be involved in accounting for these moneys—they are small amounts—and it has therefore been tentatively decided by our Department that money which is paid in to the Department by the mines after 10 years should be handed over to the South African Native Trust so that the benefit of moneys which have not been claimed or which cannot be paid out will accrue to the Bantu and not to the White taxpayer. But if the Bantu can be traced subsequently it will still be possible to institute a claim for repayment and the money can still be paid over to the Bantu. This is a matter in regard to which there have been negotiations for a considerable time between my Department on the one hand and the Department of Justice and the Transvaal Master on the other hand. A great deal of correspondence has also been exchanged on the subject and there is absolutely no difference of opinion between this Department and the other Department concerned. Last year when the draft Bill in connection with the Estates Act was published for public comment the Department of Bantu Administration once again raised this matter with them with the request that provision should also be made in that Act to recognize the procedure which is prescribed by regulation in terms of the Labour Regulation Act. I still do not know whether that recommendation of ours has been implemented.

The hon. member also referred to moneys which accrue to Bantu from the workmen’s compensation insurance funds and he asked what would become of that money if the Bantu could not be traced. Up to the present moment it has not been our intention to dispose of those moneys by way of regulation, but it would be possible to do so under the present wording of this Bill. This is another matter in connection with which our Department will be able to negotiate with the Department concerned, that is to say, the Department of Labour, as well as another Department which may also be interested, and if agreement is reached, as we did, for example, with the Master in connection with these other funds, then in terms of this Bill we will also have the power to frame regulations on a differential basis. That is the full, complete picture and I think hon. members will have a very much clearer picture now. I want to say to the hon. member for Boland that he did a good thing in raising this point.

I am highly appreciative of the reply the hon. the Minister has given me. I think it will suffice if I only deal with the last point he made. I realize now that certain administrative action is already being taken in regard to wages and other moneys due to the Bantu who have died or who have disappeared. The Minister has now made it clear that the State wants power to deal with other money apart from Bantu wages as indicated in the Explanatory White Paper. How the hon. the Minister will succeed in that regard, I just do not know. The point I want to make is this, that the Minister may encounter difficulties if the head of his Department were to say: “I now have the power by regulation to call upon other money, such as money payable by and under the Workmen’s Compensation Act” and there is a refusal; then there will be a clash. I therefore think the hon. the Minister should still, if possible, try to so amend this clause so as to indicate clearly that at this stage it is merely intended to cover the various points raised by the hon. the Minister. Then I shall have no objection. I think I have done some good by raising this point, and I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to amend this clause in such a way that it will not be possible to clash with other Departments.

I should like to come back to a matter the hon. the Deputy Minister was dealing with yesterday, the matter raised by this side of the House, as to what was meant by the word “detention” in sub-clause (c) on page 17. It says that regulations can be made for

The hon. the Deputy Minister began to explain what this meant. But he explained it on the basis that the persons who were going to be sent to these places and detained there—whatever that may mean—were in fact those persons whose contracts had been legally cancelled. He then went on and said: “Look who they are; they are the work-shy people” and all the rest of it. They are those people who will fall under the last clause he has now inserted, namely, persons who engage in subversive activities. The hon. the Deputy Minister left me with the very strong impression that these persons were in fact going to be put in gaol or prison or something of that sort, because he was indicating to us the person who was going to be dealt with, only those persons whose contracts had been terminated in terms of the former clause and in the discretion of the official of the bureau. He left me with the impression that, after all, we were only dealing with the subversive elements and “skelms” so it did not really matter And he wanted to know why we were so concerned about them. He almost challenged us to say we objected to that type of person going to gaol. That was unfortunately how he explained this clause.

Unfortunately for him the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) asked him a question. He asked him whether he had not read this clause properly. The hon. member for South Coast pointed out that not only did it deal with such persons as the hon. the Deputy Minister envisaged but that it also dealt with persons whose contracts had, not only been cancelled, but whose employment had otherwise terminated. The employment is otherwise terminated in any way by the man losing his job. It can be terminated in a hundred different ways in the normal course of events. They are then put into the machine via the bureaux and the aid centres and sent back to their homelands or scheduled or released areas and they are detained there. The hon. the Deputy Minister owes us an explanation as to what exactly the word “detention” means. He owes us an explanation even more so because his White Paper says of this clause “that the paragraph is not confined to Bantu labourers as defined but authorizes the issue of regulations which will apply to all Bantu”. Sir, the hon. gentlemen sitting on that side of the House must not accuse us of raising spooks. We are quite entitled to look at the Bill and see what it means. That is our duty to look at the words of the Bill. It is not our duty to take in what the hon. the Deputy Minister says or what his white-washing paper says or whatever the hon. the Minister of Information has to say about it.

White-washing paper!

I wish those vocal members over there would form themselves into some sort of group perhaps a singing group. I suggest they call themselves “The Goggas”

I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree that he was about to explain this clause away on the basis that they were undesirable persons concerned with activities relating to the subversion of the State. The hon. the Deputy Minister has left us with the impression that they were going to be put in gaol and he should explain it. Not only in his own interests but in the interests of South Africa. Something like this must not be left as it is. People who read this and take the words to mean what the Oxford English Dictionary says, must not be allowed to get the impression that this is what it appears to be, namely, the detention in their own areas of any Bantu in a prison or some other sort of lock-up. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will do this House and the country the courtesy of explaining this.

There are a number of matters in this clause that I wish to deal with. The first one relates to the same sub-clause as the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has just been discussing and that is paragraph (c) on page 17 of the Bill. First of all, it seems to me that the hon. the Deputy Minister ought to explain more fully than he has up to now how he can justify a provision whereby a Bantu, whose contract of employment has been terminated through no fault of his own, or whose contract has come to an end through effluxion of time, should not only be returned to his home but may be sent to any part of a scheduled Native area or any part of a released area. Not only the Bantu himself, Mr. Chairman, but also all his dependants with him. How can such a provision be justified in any law …

Order! That point has been made over and over again. The hon. member must now advance new arguments.

The point I am now making is that this criticism has not been answered at all by that side of the House, and it is of such importance that this House is entitled to have an answer on the point. I do not wish to proceed any further with that. I again emphasize that in my submission, this is something on which this House is entitled to an answer.

The second point I wish to deal with, arising out of this paragraph, relates to the last sentence in that paragraph, in terms of which Bantu who are dealt with in terms of this paragraph and sent either to their homes or a scheduled Native area or a released area may be detained in that area. Mr. Chairman, once again I do not wish to labour this point, but I wish to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he has not given this House any reason why such a person should be detained in the area to which he is sent.

Order! The hon. member must advance new arguments. That point has been made over and over again.

I merely wanted to point out that we have had no answer.

I wish to come to some other points in this paragraph. The next matter I wish to deal with is on page 19 of the Bill, dealing with the long list of regulations which may be made in terms of this Bill. The particular portion of paragraph (o) that I wish to deal with starts at line 14 to line 18. It reads—

This empowers the Minister to make regulations regarding the classes of employers to whom Bantu may be made available by the bureaux. It also makes provision for the manner in which and the conditions under which these Bantu may be placed in employment. This provision places the Minister of Bantu Administration to a very large extent in control of economic development.

Order! The hon. member is transgressing.

Mr. Chairman, with respect …

Order! The hon. member cannot argue with the Chair. He must accept my ruling.

Sir, I wish to explain to you that I wish to expand on the arguments which have been advanced. I do not wish to repeat them.

Order! The hon. member must accept my ruling. The hon. member must advance new arguments.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to advance new arguments on this point. The point about the regulations that can be made in terms of this provision is that it enables the Minister to adopt not economic considerations …

Order! I must ask the hon. member to resume his seat unless he advances new arguments.

In that case I should like to proceed to page 21 of the Bill, paragraph (t) dealing with youth centres. I was dealing with the youth centres when I last spoke on this clause last night and my time expired. I now wish to continue to make the points that I wanted to make in connection with these youth centres. The first point I wish to make is this. The hon. the Deputy Minister suggested that the persons in respect of whom youth centres were being created were, what might be called the tsotsi element, the unruly element amongst the persons in the age group referred to here. One aspect of this, which I believe cannot be overlooked by this House, is the fact that the provisions of this Bill will aggravate the present position and will create even more of the tsotsi type.

How can you say that?

I can say that and I shall explain in a moment, if the hon. member would give me the opportunity of doing so. It will increase that element, Mr. Chairman, because under this Bill no family life will exist any longer for the Bantu in the urban areas. Without any doubt at all it must increase considerably the already very high rate of illegitimacy amongst the Bantu people in the urban areas. And with that, Sir, there must be a considerable increase in the tsotsi element because there will be no proper control and supervision over the youngsters in the Bantu townships. That is the position already to-day, Mr. Chairman. In my submission it will be considerably aggravated once this Bill has been passed. [Time limit.]

I should like to reply to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). That is probably the reason why that side of the House sighed when I got up. The hon. member dealt with paragraph (c) of this sub-section in which provision is made for certain regulations to be issued. He reproached the Minister and said that this detention of Bantu referred to all Bantu and not only to those Bantu whom the Minister had advised him it referred to.

Which Bantu are those?

I shall read it in English—

That is the first class. Then—

That is the second class. The class mentioned in the previous clause, as the hon. Minister rightly said. Then the clause goes on—

They are not, for example, the persons referred to in the previous clause. The hon. member now says it refers to all Bantu. Surely the hon. member knows that there are numerous court decisions as to how a law should be interpreted, particularly when you are dealing with the power to make regulations. The hon. member will notice that there are two “ands”—“declared medically unfit for employment and the placing in employment and the detention of such Bantu in such areas.” This “placing in employment” refers to certain Bantu and the “detention of such Bantu in such areas” also refers to certain Bantu. According to the law of interpretation “or” should also be read for “and”. It should be read “and/or”. If the hon. member has ever practised he will know that that is what the law of interpretation teaches you. If you read “and” as “or” you will see, Sir, that “placing of employment”, for example, also refers to those who are “medically unfit”. Surely you will not detain the “medically unfit”, Mr. Chairman. When the regulations are made later on that distinction will of necessity have to be made in the regulations. Because if that distinction is not made those regulations will be declared ultra vires. Surely the hon. member knows that. The hon. the Minister is quite correct, therefore. There was nothing wrong with his explanation when he said that “detention” only referred to those who could really be detained. Those Bantu who are taken there because they are “medically unfit” are not subject to detention. And the regulations will have to keep proper account of that otherwise they will be ultra vires. That as far as the legal explanation is concerned.

I cannot reply to the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie), because he merely paged through the Bill. He referred us to various pages but he did not say anything.

I waited for him to come forward with something new but he simply once again referred to the families that would be broken up. That has already been adequately replied to. Before I sit down, Sir, I just want to say this. I think it is important that this be said. I would like the Opposition to take a page from the book of the hon. member for Houghton and follow her example. She makes a thorough study of this matter and she presents her case without venom and without South Africa being besmirched. [Interjections.] I am praising her in this case because the Opposition has not done so. Various members of the Opposition have taken different clauses and on each occasion they have only extracted that which is mean and presented it as though …

Order! The hon. member must discuss the clause.

I have finished, Sir.

With a wave of his hand the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) claimed that the attack on family life had been answered by the other side and when the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) said that there would be a diminution of family life a howl went up from the Government benches indicating that that would not be so. I am very glad to hear that it is apparently their wish that it should not be so. In other words, as I understand the position, it is the wish of hon. members opposite that this family life should continue as it is. I want to suggest that this is again a case of speaking with two voices. Because I have here a report of the speech by Dr. P. F. S. J. van Rensburg, of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, at the Sa-bra Conference. This report appeared in the Burger of 3 October 1963. It is quite clear from this speech …

Order! The hon. member must discuss the clause and not Sabra.

Mr. Chairman, I am pointing to the fact that it is quite clear from what is said in this report that the whole trend is indeed to attack family life very considerably; and indeed to take such steps as to eliminate people who are here on a family basis. That is perfectly clear from this statement, but in deference to your ruling I shall not say anything more about it. I shall be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister would answer this point in connection with the family in view of this speech of Dr. van Rensburg, of which he no doubt knows.

I want to return to paragraph (g) which is introduced by Clause 9 (c) and refer to just a slightly different aspect from that which the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and the hon. member for Durban (North) have referred to. In paragraph (g) there are these three aspects: people whose contracts of employment have been cancelled, people whose contracts have otherwise been terminated, and the third category, people who have been ordered to such area by a competent authority. Such people also can be detained in these so-called Bantustans, notwithstanding that their homes may not have been there. I suggest that it is quite clear that one of the authorities which may order these people to these areas quite foreign to them, are the aid centres, because the aid centre would represent a “competent authority” able to order people to a certain area. One has only got to refer to the relevant clause, Clause 12, to see that that is so. Consequently, where the hon. Deputy Minister is trying to paint a picture that these aid centres are what the words truly mean, I suggest he is again in this respect very wide of the mark. It is perfectly clear that a person merely arrested on a charge in connection with the pass laws can be sent away under order to one of these scheduled areas which may not have been his home at all. I think therefore the great disadvantage of such a state of affairs must be too apparent not even to need emphasizing.

I hope very much that the hon. Deputy Minister since he has had a very fair analysis by several members pointing out the serious aspects which this clause introduces, aspects which we maintain will go to undermine the good relations which have existed here and which it is most important should continue to exist, will give his answers.

We would like to hear his answers as to how provisions of this kind with such far-reaching implications will be accepted by the people of this country—I am thinking particularly of the Bantu people—will be accepted with complete calmness and meekness. What basis has the hon. Minister got for his confidence that the labour force of this country will put up with these clauses and that our whole human relationships here will not be seriously undermined? Because it is our serious charge—I know various motives have been imputed to us, but we are concerned just as much as hon. members opposite to ensure the future prosperity of this country and we are concerned about the future of Western civilization here, we are concerned to ensure that the highest standards are maintained in this country, and we say seriously, and I hope hon. members opposite will accept our good faith—that methods of this kind and treatment of this kind will gravely undermine these relations, and almost certainly will advance the cause of Communism, to which hon. members opposite are committed in their opposition. I do ask the hon. Minister to do us the courtesy of explaining to us how it is that these serious criticisms that we have should fall away and are not serious criticisms, and how these important new powers will not have this undermining effect.

The hon. member for Durban (North) has again put questions to me to-day which he expects me to answer. The hon. member must not hold it against me when I tell him that I shall really clash with you, Mr. Chairman, if I did reply to his questions, because I answered them last night. I dealt with that point yesterday. The hon. member digs into every letter of every word and asks me for a lengthy reply on that. I just want to remind the hon. member that when I spoke last night about the detention of people who were sent elsewhere because their contracts had been cancelled, I said they could be detained in various ways. It depends on the particular circumstances of the particular person who has to be detained. Are we expected to visualize in advance and to say in advance that we shall treat that one in such a manner, that we shall detain another one in such a way, and that a third shall be detained at such a place? Surely one cannot be so theoretical. We shall allow ourselves to be guided by human considerations according to what the circumstances demand from us. When the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) referred me to those whose service contracts were “otherwise terminated” I told him immediately what I understood by that. Some contracts are terminated voluntarily by the persons concerned; some contracts are terminated by the employers. Those people can also be dealt with if necessary. The point which should interest the hon. member for South Coast in particular who attacked me on this point and the hon. member for Durban (North) is this that these words in regard to regulations already appear in the existing enabling clause in the Labour Regulation Act. The existing paragraph (g) talks about “the disposal or return to their homes of Natives whose contracts have been legally cancelled … or have otherwise terminated”. It is therefore something which already exists and which we have just taken over. Now the hon. member talks about “spooks” but before he talks about the “spooks” he sees for the future he must first show us where the existing power to make regulations has been so terribly abused to the detriment of the Bantu as he alleges.

But you did not have the power to detain them.

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) asked why the Bantu could be returned to their homelands. But this is another fundamental difference between the liberals on the other side, like the hon. member for Musgrave and we on this side. Hon. members opposite want all the Bantu to remain in the White areas, even those who are undesirable, even those who can be better rehabilitated to become worthy workers within the ranks of their own people. Hon. members want those to remain here as well. It is no good arguing with the hon. member on that basis. We are on either side of a deep ravine and I cannot argue with the hon. member on that basis. Hon. members ought to know that so far Bantu have already been sent to their homelands in this way and Bantu have undoubtedly also been rehabilitated in their homelands, although I do not suppose great success has been achieved in many of those cases.

The hon. member for Musgrave also asked: Why should it be possible to detain them inside their own homelands? That again will depend on circumstances. If it is possible to take a hard case, such a difficult case, there and you want to rehabilitate him gradually it may be necessary to detain him under your care at the beginning and you have to do that in his own interests and in the interests of the community in which you settle him. Why should he not be detained in his homelands as well if he can be detained here? That does not mean that everybody will be detained and that they will be detained for life. Everything will depend on what the particular circumstances of a particular case demand. The hon. member also referred to lines 14 to 18 of the new paragraph (o) on page 19. There too he suggests that terrible things can happen, things that can happen to-day. That is in respect of the first portion which has been taken over, it is only the second portion which says “and the manner in which and the conditions under which such Bantu should be placed in employment” that is being added. Is the hon. member not prepared to admit that some of the Bantu who return there will perhaps have to be detained there to put them on the right road? We do not say that they must all be detained. Nobody will be more grateful than we ourselves if nobody has to be detained in the process of rehabilitating him and turning him into a being who can again do an honest day’s work. But if it becomes necessary in that process to detain them we shall have the power to do so. The difficulty with hon. members opposite is that they always attribute the worst possible motives to the smallest little thing they can find. The hon. member for Musgrave referred to the Bill as a whole and to this clause in particular, and again said: “No family life is allowed under this clause in the urban areas.” That is the same childish ignorance that we have had before in this debate and I have dealt with that in detail in my reply to the second reading. I pointed out how this Bill acknowledged family ties throughout. I am not going to enlarge on that but there are many places where the presence of the woman in society is clearly acknowledged, of the woman in the urban areas, and in various places reference is made to the dependants, the wives and children who have to be taken into consideration when people have to be removed, etc. We do acknowledge the family ties and to say, as the hon. member has done, that this Bill destroys all family ties is grossly to over-emphasize a wrong fact.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) also spoke in general terms but I want to react to one or two small points. When referring to detention in the homelands and the sending of people to their homelands he said: Just imagine, those who have no homes there can be sent back there! But what is a home? Is that such an absolute rigid concept which is confined to one place? And who says those who are removed from the White area had homes here? Perhaps they did not have a home here either and it may perhaps be more possible for them to acquire a home there. The hon. member uses certain words which have a certain emotional attraction for society in his attempt to paint this Bill black. That is his whole object. The hon. member says the Bantu will not accept all this. He is suddenly speaking on behalf of the Bantu. I want to tell the hon. member that we often come into contact with the Bantu and I personally have been in touch with a large number of Bantu in regard to this question of tsotsism and idleness because I have been concerned in investigations in that connection. I can tell the hon. member that in the majority of cases the requests that the Bantu have made to us as to how we should deal with this question of tsotsism have been of such a far-fetched nature that we have had to say to them: “No, we cannot do those things.” They want us to be very firm with such refractory people as the tsotsis. They want us to give major power to the Bantu themselves to deal with them. They asked me for instance to place the whip in their hands. They want to deal with these people in a hard-handed fashion. I can assure the hon. member that where we are dealing with people who have fallen into bad habits the sensible and law-abiding Bantu will always support us when we say that those people who tend to fall into bad habits should be rehabilitated. The Bantu will welcome that because they want those people to be rehabilitated and they insist on measures which very often go too far in this connection.

Does the hon. Deputy Minister realize what resistance the Bantu is going to put up to the enforcement of the conditions laid down in this clause and the regulations to be framed under this clause, and that that resistance and conflict is going to lead to bringing the whole of the Bantu Administration into disrepute? We remember the trouble the Government had in regard to the passes and all the inspections in regard to passes and permits, and in this case the force-able detention or removal of people will also cause them a lot of trouble. If they are not careful the Bantu people will cause so much conflict and so much disturbance that they will undo any good that they think to bring about. In regard to the passes they brought in a special “Act for the Abolition of Passes”, in order to do away with that name, and they brought in the name of “reference books”, because at that time the inspection of passes caused so much trouble in this country.

Order! That is not under discussion now.

I was dealing really with the enforcement of the provisions of this clause, because under this clause wherever a Muntu has not got his permit in order, he is going to be detained, and especially when this applies to prescribed areas in the rural areas as well as the urban areas, you are going to have a multiplicity of detentions, which the old arrests under the old pass system are going to be nothing to it, because here you are going to remove whole families from the areas in which they reside. I want to point out to the hon. Deputy Minister that that is going to lead to tremendous conflicts between whole sections of the community here, and on top of that it does not only involve the Bantu people, but it involves Europeans who are also involved in particular instances where those Bantu are on their premises without permits. They themselves may often be involved with the Bantu in relation to regulations which do not cover that Bantu or the owner of the land or the dwelling in which such Natives are found. I think it is very important that the Deputy Minister and this House should realize how the whole of our economy and especially the Bantu Affairs Department itself will fall into disrepute by the enforcement of regulations and the conditions of this very clause.

Question put: That the words “or compulsory” in line 11, page 19, stand part of the clause, and a division demanded.

As fewer than four members (viz. Mr. Barnett and Mrs. Suzman) supported the demand for a division, Question affirmed, the amendment negatived and the amendments up to and including the amendment in lines 17 and 18, page 21, dropped.

Proposed proviso to the new paragraph (o) put and negatived.

Question put: That the proposed new paragraphs (s) and (t), inserted by paragraph (i), stand part of the clause, and a division demanded.

As fewer than four members (viz. Mr. Barnett and Mrs. Suzman) supported the demand for a division, Question affirmed and the remaining amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—79: 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.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Noes—41: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to. On Clause 12,

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name, in substitution of the existing sub-section (6) of the proposed new Section 28ter, so that the position in regard to non-detention in aid centres may be placed beyond any doubt. As you will see, Sir, it says: “Nothing in this section contained shall be construed as (a) authorizing the detention of a Bantu in an aid centre.” That is the idea which we are now introducing so as to make it quite clear that it will not be possible either to detain those people who come to the aid centres for having contravened the Criminal Procedure Act in the accepted meaning of the word “detain”. It will consequently be the task of the police to judge whether they should take such people there knowing that if they do take them to the aid centres they will lose the right to detain them which they would have had had they taken them to the police station. Paragraph (b) says “preventing any Bantu who is unemployed or who is in an area unlawfully from being admitted to an aid centre at his own request”. That is how the existing clause reads at the moment and which we are now splitting into two sections. I more or less held it out in prospect in my reply to the second-reading debate and I therefore repeat that our object with these aid centres is that the people will not be detained there as in a gaol but that the people will be “kept” there so as to enable them to be instructed by the officials and if necessary assisted. I think everything should be very clear to hon. members as to the exact nature of the way in which people will stay in these aid centres. I move—

1. (6) Nothing in this section contained shall be construed as—
   1. (a) authorizing the detention of a Bantu in an aid centre;
   2. (b) preventing any Bantu who is unemployed or who is in an area unlawfully from being admitted to an aid centre at his own request.

The amendment moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister has dealt in one respect with some of the criticisms we have raised. In so far as it goes, I would say one word in its favour, that it is making things perhaps less harsh than they would otherwise have been. But I think it is right to have a look at the proposed position of the aid centres in terms of this clause and in terms of what the Minister expects. I will start right at the beginning of 28ter (1) (a). It is quite clear from that that the Minister has to specify by notice in the Gazette which of the various contraventions may be dealt with by committing a Native to an aid centre. Only when the Minister has specified that in the Gazette can they be committed. I say that any Native who has contravened the provisions of this Act or of the Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act of 1945 or of the Natives (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act of 1952 or the regulations made thereunder, as the Minister may specify in a notice in the Gazette may notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or any other law be admitted to an aid centre established by or for a labour bureau and approved by the director and be dealt with in the manner prescribed. In other words, the Minister prescribes the offence for which the Native may be admitted. I want for the moment to postulate two Bantu. The one is arrested but not charged or convicted, and the other has been convicted. Now they are in the machine; they are put into that aid centre. If you come to sub-section (2), bearing in mind that there is nothing here that authorizes the detention, you find that the provisions of Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to any Bantu admitted under sub-section (1) (a), which I have just read, to an aid centre, and any reference in the said section to a police station will be construed as including a reference to an aid centre.

But my amendment overrides that.

The Minister says his amendment will put it right. What does it put right? We have pointed out the difficulty of moving amendments to this Bill, and here is a classic case. He will have a police station now which will remain as a police station, but there is now an amendment to say that you cannot detain people in that police station. Sir, that is going to be a unique police station in the history of the world, and the Minister is a unique Minister to think of a thing like that. Then if you go a step further and come to (3) (a), you find that the Bantu Affairs Commissioner of the area in which an aid centre is situate may hold a court in such aid centre. The Bantu Commissioner holds a court, but how does he get his prisoner there? The prisoner cannot be detained in the aid centre, according to the Minister’s amendment, and the police cannot keep him in the police station which is the aid centre. So now the Bantu Commissioner holds a court there and there is no power to bring that person before the court.

But are all persons detained in a court?

I am coming to that. I have postulated two cases. One was the man who was arrested and not charged, and the other a man who was convicted. The one who was convicted is now put into the aid centre. Into what? Into a police station where he cannot be detained? What keeps him there? No doubt his love and patriotism for South Africa! The other man has not even been charged yet. He is arrested and is facing a charge. What is he facing? He is facing the possibility that under (4) (b) he can be repatriated or sent to his last place of residence or to a rehabilitation scheme. What is a rehabilitation scheme? Surely it is what it says it is, a scheme for the rehabilitation of tsotsis and all the other people the Minister said he wanted to deal with. I do not object to that, but what I am concerned with is that that man has not been charged. Now the police station cannot keep him and the Bantu commissioner’s court sits there to deal with the prisoner who has been arrested but cannot be detained. He has been arrested and put in the police station, but he cannot be detained there in terms of the Minister’s amendment. So what does the Bantu Commissioner’s court do? Let us proceed a bit further. When you come to sub-section (4) you deal with the powers of a Bantu Commissioner or an officer approved in terms of sub-section (1) (b), which says that an aid centre shall be managed by an officer approved in writing by the secretary, or such other officer as he may confer the authority upon. Now this officer can manage the aid centre notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or any other law, in addition to any other powers prescribed or referred to in this section, in respect of any Bantu admitted to any such aid centre or detained in a prison or a police cell or lock-up on account of an offence referred to in paragraph (a) of sub-section (1), whether or not he has been convicted for such offence. That is sub-section (4). Of what value is the Minister’s amendment now? Because this clause says categorically “notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or any other law”. This sub-section nullifies the Minister’s amendment, and it overrides all other laws, and how can this man be dealt with? I go back again to the two people, one of whom was arrested but not charged, and the other was convicted, and assuming that they have stayed there and have played the game according to the rules, which somebody has instructed them in, and although they were in a police station, they were not under duress and they were not detained but they did not run away, and the Native Commissioner’s court comes along and it may even find the man who was arrested innocent. But that is not the point, because this clause now says “under any other law”. The Bantu Commissioner who finds him innocent may nevertheless find it is desirable to send him to a rehabilitation centre or some other place, and I see nothing to prevent the Commissioner from making such an order. The Native can then be given certain documents and he is on his way. The Deputy Minister and members opposite have referred from time to time to the fact that certain provisions of this Bill appear in older legislation, and they go back to the days of General Botha. Of course, it must be so, but let me say this, that the point is that this Bill, with those provisions, is now being used as an instrument to get unemployed Bantu out of a White area. That is what it is fashioned for. The Acts from which these provisions were taken were fashioned for a totally different purpose, and we have to bear that in mind always. In those days those Acts were fashioned to have a contented labour force of law-abiding Bantu, who providing they behave themselves and obey the laws were there to find work which best suited them and to choose their place of employment. But those provisions which are now incorporated in this Bill are being used for a totally different purpose altogether. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, most of the amendments I now move and which stand in my name on the Order Paper are in fact designed to deal with the very abuses which might come about under this clause and which have been mentioned by the hon. member for South Coast, and I hope therefore that he will stand up and support me when I call for a division on this clause. I move the following amendments—

They are designed to try to cut down the powers of an aid centre to deal with any persons other than those who have been convicted. Like the hon. member for South Coast, I believe that because a person has been arrested it does not necessarily mean that he is guilty. Until he has been tried by a proper court of law, he should be entitled to the ordinary privileges of a man who is under charge and he should not be under the restrictions of a man who has been convicted. That is one of my amendments. The other is designed to take away the powers which are being conferred in this clause to convert an aid centre into a court of law. I believe that already far too many of the functions of the ordinary courts of law are handled by special courts where Africans are concerned and I do not approve of that system and therefore I move the deletion of sub-section (3). Already we have the position where departmental circulars go out to lawyers who try to appear for Africans who are to appear in the Bantu courts charged with certain offences, and they are told that it is not necessary for them to appear to defend clients because these are “departmental matters”. Now I see an extension of this whole system of attempting to try Africans for crimes in private courts, courts set away where the public will not have easy access, especially if they are set up in townships in the prescribed areas, where people have to get permits to enter, courts that are not held under the public eye, etc. without even an easy way of access to lawyers, which of course is difficult enough for the ordinary African … [Interjections.] I have other amendments also to this clause. Particularly I do not want the officer in charge of the aid centre to have the title of peace officer under the Criminal Procedure Act. Again it is a projection of legal power which I do not believe should be given to people who are not properly trained to do the job.

I now come to my main objection. I am against the whole setting up of these aid centres. I do not like the idea of labour being directed to aid centres voluntarily or otherwise. I will come back to this idea of “voluntary” in a moment. The Minister’s amendment makes not the slightest difference to my objection. Because if a man goes to an aid centre, having either been arrested or convicted, and if he refuses to deal with the “prisoner’s friend” there, the aid centre officer who may decide that he should be sent away to another area or that he should take up employment which this man deems to be suitable employment, the minute he refuses and steps out of the office of course he is under arrest again, so there is nothing voluntary about this at all. And all sorts of people can be scooped up and taken to the aid centre under this particular clause. It is not only people who are arrested or who are convicted of any crime under the Urban Areas Act or the pass laws, but there are other people who can be sent to the aid centres, e.g. people who are deemed to be idle or undesirable, and the definition is so wide that anyone can be deemed to be idle or undesirable. That is my one objection.

The other thing that I want to know from the Minister is this, and I hope he will answer this question because he did not answer it when I raised this question last night under another clause, although it is as germane to this clause as it was to the other; and that is whether any Bantu who under Section 8 is refused permission by a labour bureau officer to take up work in an area and can be sent to an aid centre, can also include persons who fall outside the proviso of the earlier sub-sections of Clause 8, i.e. the regulations which lay down why a man may be refused permission to take up work or his contract may be cancelled. Is it wider than that, or can a labour bureau officer only refuse to allow a man to take up work in terms of set conditions? That is the answer I want. How wide are the powers of the labour bureau officers? It is germane to this clause because such a person can be sent to the aid centre and thereafter he can be sent anywhere at all where the officer in the aid centre decides to send him, and if he refuses on three consecutive occasions he can be declared idle, and then he is taken back again and therefore it is not voluntary at all. Because once he steps outside he can be arrested. So this is not what I understand by “voluntary”. In fact, it is much more like the old system of “in lieu of prosecution” which we had in this country a few years ago and which specifically relates to persons arrested under the pass laws who were never charged in a court but who were simply diverted to employers of labour, generally farmers, who were unable to attract labour by the normal means of competition, of paying competitive wages, of paying wages high enough to attract labour in a voluntary form. And so a vast pool of cheap labour was kept available for farmers, and this system is exactly the same. The Minister may call it voluntary, but it is not voluntary. It has none of the elements of voluntary service. People of all sorts of categories are sent to the aid centres and if they refuse to do what they are told on three consecutive occasions they can be deemed idle and the voluntary act falls away altogether. I think this in-lieu-of-prosecutions system is a very bad system. It is virtually a system of forced labour because it means that people are sent into this big pool. They are never charged with any offence and they can be diverted to any of these, what I call, bad employers, because to my mind people who do not attract labour voluntarily and who have to rely on a pool of cheap labour kept there for their benefit by this sort of thing, are not good employers of labour. As far as I am concerned, the Minister’s amendment does not help at all and I have not the same picture that he has of benevolent officials doing their best to place displaced and unemployed Africans who have wandered in from the rural areas seeking suitable employment. My picture is one of reality. I have been to the Bantu commissioners’ courts as they are now and these aid centres are taking on all the aspects of the Bantu commissioners’ courts. I do not have the same benevolent picture that the Minister has. I see harassed officials dealing with thousands upon thousands of applicants, hundreds every day, penned up in a vast cage, waiting to be served and for their cases to be heard, and the officials are quite unable to give proper attention to these cases. The man has no opportunity to defend himself in any way. Now we have this sort of thing set up under the guise of aid centres and it can be set up in any areas outside the public eye altogether, with officials who are not even as well trained as the Bantu commissioners to hear these cases, and who are not as well paid as the Bantu commissioners. I do not see how they will be the benevolent officials that the Minister thinks they will be. They will take the easiest and shortest route of getting through the overwhelming daily load of work which they are going to have to do, and they will push people around as fast as they can and they will not stop to listen to arguments about whether the work is suitable, whether a man was a waiter and they are now offering him work as a coal-heaver, or whether a man was doing semi-skilled work in a factory and he is now told to go to work digging up potatoes on a farm. They will not have time to listen to these arguments as to their suitability and I say that these aid centres are a replacement for what was a bad and disgraceful system and one which created a public scandal in South Africa a few years ago. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) seems to think that when labour goes to the farms it necessarily goes to bad employers. Where does she get that from? She does not know what she is talking about at all, and her whole speech is scandalous and an insult to the platteland. She may perhaps know something about the courts of Bantu Affairs commissioners, which I doubt, but she knows absolutely nothing about the working conditions on a farm. And let me tell her this. Very often these people get mixed up with the bureau to which she referred. They go there because they have nowhere else to go, and then they are cared for there and they are asked: What can you do? You are here without documents; you have contravened the pass laws and now you can choose between being prosecuted and imprisoned, or going elsewhere where we will provide work for you. And then the work available is mentioned to them, inter alia, work on farms. Many of them like to go to the farms. And there are many of them who have remained on the farms for years. But the hon. member knows nothing about that. Sir, it is her privilege to vilify the farmers, and particularly the Afrikaans-speaking farmers, because she is filled with a hatred for those people which absolutely astonishes me. That is a fact. She has not a single good word for anyone who lives on the platteland, and I think her approach is scandalous. I want to tell her this. I represent a constituency where there are people who employ this type of labour, and it is not the Afrikaans-speaking people who commit crimes against those people, but members of her own race. [Interjections.] She simply does not know what she is talking about.

When we regard this clause soberly, it is intended to try to remedy a wrong in South Africa. We have the difficulty that people come to the cities without documents, without permission and without employment, and without having anywhere to go. They go there with the object of improving their position, but they lack the equipment or the knowledge to make a living in this new milieu of which they have no knowledge. What is the Minister doing now? He says: We do not want to prosecute these people; we refer them to these aid centres. I am very glad that the Opposition has not again been as foolish as they were the other day in alleging that these aid centres are prisons. Evidently the arguments which came from this side made some impression on them. But perhaps it is still to come; maybe I am giving them too much credit, because they have not yet spoken on this clause. But what happens now? When such a person is referred to that aid centre, what does the official do with him? He must inquire firstly—I read on page 23, Clause 28ter (4) (b), and I do so in English because those hon. members do not understand Nederlands—

What else can one do? One can only put him in prison and hire him out as a prisoner-worker, and let me tell the hon. member for Houghton: The people who hire convict labour do not hire this type of convict labour, because it is usually a man who has been given one or two weeks’ imprisonment, and it costs the farmer too much to fetch such a convict and to keep him for only two weeks. The farmers just do not want it. Hon. members opposite, and particularly the hon. member for Houghton, and a number of the leftist reporters in our country have created the impression overseas that the pass laws and the laws dealing with documentation envisage the detention of people as a sinister scheme on the part of this Government to make a helpless labour force available to anyone who requires labour, as if it is a sort of slave camp. That is her approach. Although these people have made mistakes, we do not want them to be imprisoned. We are sorry for them. But she does not believe that the Minister is imbued with any goodwill. She does not believe that we can be decent towards the Bantu. Of course she is at liberty to give any bad testimonial, even though she does not know what she is talking about. She does not know what spirit imbues the officials who deal with these Bantu. She does not know how very often they are at their wits’ end to know what to do with these Bantu. Many of them have no plans themselves. Nevertheless the officials do their best. It may well be that they cannot find work for a Bantu as a waiter in the Grand Hotel, even though he is a qualified waiter. I suppose her view is that we should build an hotel where these waiters, who have no other work, can be employed. That is the ridiculous conclusion the hon. member has arrived at. [Interjection.] Mr. Chairman, I suppose you notice that she is making a running commentary while I am talking. I wonder what will happen if this is to continue. I am just pointing out how ridiculous the hon. member for Houghton is because she has some or other bee in her bonnet. She will make the wildest allegations irresponsibly. This section is intended to solve in a humane manner a problem with which we are faced. She is opposed to it. What is the alternative she suggests? Her alternative is: Throw open the gates and allow these people to stream in and take no further notice of them. The one in front is best off and the devil take the hindmost. And what happens then? I can only say what happened before in our history when we had that state of affairs. Then we were simply swamped by unemployed people who hung round the necks of a few breadwinners. What is more, most of them could not even provide for themselves. Where we had one family which at least had enough food to eat, we had two or three families who lived on the earnings of the same breadwinner, and together with him they lived below the breadline. What is more, they congregated around our cities and lived in hovels because they could not even provide for themselves. Under the new set-up special attention is being devoted to the particular problem of these Bantu, but in her eyes that is not a good thing. What is good? The hovels, the unemployment, living below the breadline, or the paternal care she does not believe in? [Time limit.]

When my time ran out just now, I was dealing with the way in which certain provisions of the old Act have been interwoven with this one. I explained that we were looking at these things from a totally different point of view. I want now to pursue the case of the two entirely imaginary characters to whom I had referred, one of whom had been arrested but not charged and the other convicted on a charge of having committed certain misdemeanours, and they were both in an aid centre. One assumes now, although the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) has again repeated most emphatically that the aid centre is not a gaol …

No it is not a gaol and the amendment of the Deputy Minister makes that perfectly clear.

That is fair enough, but it does not overcome my difficulty. Sir, if I may interrupt myself for a moment, I think it is quite noteworthy that the hon. member never attempted to answer a single point that I put forward here, and he is a professor of law and I am a poor farmer from the backveld. If my argument was wrong in law, why did he not deal with it? Why did he use that extravagant language towards the person of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman)? Why did he not get down to criticizing my presentation of the case?

Make you point.

Order!

Let me now complete what I was saying. The hon. member-quoted sub-section (4) which he read in English. I had reached sub-section (4) and I had pointed out that it makes certain provisions “notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act,” which includes the Deputy Minister’s amendment. This sub-section overrides the provisions of this Act or any other law.

No, my amendment overrides all other provisions.

If you are a farmer from the backveld you must accept the opinion of someone who knows something about this matter.

Order!

I am taking him at his word. He said he was a poor farmer from the backveld.

It is quite immaterial that the two men are still there, not in custody, because if the Deputy Minister is right then they are not being detained. One has been convicted and he is just standing there waiting to be disposed of. The other one has been arrested but not charged yet.

They put salt on him.

Yes, that is right; they put salt on his tail which makes him stay there, but he is not detained. Then, Sir, you come to (b), and here a Bantu Affairs Commissioner or an officer approved by the Secretary, who is in charge of the aid centre, irrespective of whether that Native has come from the aid centre or has been detained in a prison or a police cell or lock-up—it does not matter therefore whether the hon. member for Standerton is right because that is where they can come from …

Read the amendment.

It is entirely in the officer’s discretion because (b) says—

It is entirely in his discretion.

What is wrong with that?

Sir, I wish the hon. member would just be quiet for a moment.

Order! The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) objected a little while ago when the hon. member for Houghton was making interjections while he was on his feet.

I am sorry, Sir.

It is in his discretion to make such order as he may think just. There is a limitation. This is what he can do: He can place that Bantu in employment or issue to him the requisite documents to get him out of the town presumably or grant to him the requisite permission or deal with his repatriation to his home or last place of residence, or to a settlement, rehabilitation scheme or any other place indicated by such Bantu Affairs Commissioner or officer. There is no argument about that; he can order them to a rehabilitation scheme. Now, Sir, I come to the point that I was dealing with. The Native who was convicted at the start of this clause of some crime and has gone through the whole of the machinery here finishes up in a rehabilitation centre. The Bantu who was arrested but never charged with any crime finished up in the same rehabilitation centre as the Bantu who was convicted of a crime. The one was convicted of a crime and the other merely arrested but never even charged, but they finish up in precisely the same place, presumably in a rehabilitation centre. Sir, what kind of attitude is this going to provoke amongst our critics, including the Bantu? The Deputy Minister may think that so far as we are concerned we are only looking at these things from the point of view of the Bantu themselves without reference to any other angles. He is wrong. We certainly look at these things from the point of view of the Bantu, but also from the point of view of the relationship between Bantu and White. What is this going to do to that relationship? That is the point that arises here. We would never dream of doing this to a White person. What hope would there be of passing a Bill such as this in this Parliament if it deals with White people on the same basis? You take a convicted criminal and you take a man who has been picked up by the police but who is never charged; they go all the way through this machine and they both finish up in the same rehabilitation centre. It is incredible, Sir. If that is the position, notwithstanding the Deputy Minister’s amendment, which I will even accept at its face value, then still the fact remains that what I say is correct. Sir, I think this is unforgivable whichever way we look at it. If the hon. member for Standerton feels his soul being tormented by the fact that the Bantu are being badly treated, then here is an opportunity for him to open his soul and see that they get some kind of justice which will be based upon the principle of the equality of all before the law. If you are going to deal with a man who is a convicted criminal in one way, then another man who has not been convicted ought not to be treated in a similar manner unless he too has been brought before the courts and convicted. That would be fair treatment, but to my mind it is completely wrong to treat a man who has never even been charged in the same way as you treat a convicted criminal, and the Bantu will also regard it as completely wrong.

I want to correct the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell).

He needs it.

I take it that he means it well but I do not think the hon. member for South Coast understands the position quite correctly. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) had certain wrong ideas in this connection which correspond with those of the hon. member for South Coast.

Brother and sister.

I think the hon. member for South Coast was wrong by unwittingly accepting that every Bantu who goes to an aid centre will land before a court in that aid centre. That is not so.

In terms of subsection (4) it makes no difference whether he has been convicted or not.

The hon. member is obsessed with sub-section (4). Sub-section (4) makes it possible for an official of an aid centre to assist a Bantu who is already under arrest somewhere or who has been convicted.

I said that.

I think he can also be assisted even if he is somewhere outside or when he comes voluntarily to the aid centre or if he is willing to be taken there. It does not mean that a court will ipso facto sit in that aid centre to decide the cases of all those Bantu. That is a completely wrong supposition. That will not necessarily happen. In the case of certain Bantu it may perhaps be necessary for the aid centre to hold court and in this connection I want to repeat what I have said before: What is wrong with that? What is wrong with it if such a court judges the cases of Bantu who have committed one of the listed offences? Surely a court is not something to which such a terrible stigma attaches as the hon. member for Houghton would have us believe and the court of a Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s the last place to which such a terrible stigma attaches. But it is not necessary in all cases for the aid centres to hold court. If I were to make a guess, I would say that in the case of the majority of Bantu who are going to land in these aid centres it will not be necessary for them to appear before a court in the aid centre and if they have to appear before a court the possibility exists that they will have to appear before the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s court. It may happen that the police do not take those Bantu they have arrested to the aid centres. The possibility is only created here that if in the process of giving the assistance which we are going to try to give to these Bantu it appears necessary that court should be held in the aid centre, it can be held. But it does not follow that all the Bantu will only be assisted by way of court proceedings in an aid centre. As a matter of fact I trust that by far the minority will have to appear before a court in the aid centre. I think that is the first big mistake the hon. member has made, as well as the hon. member for Houghton.

Let me first of all finish completely with the hon. member for South Coast. He returned to his two examples. I have already dealt with his reference to sub-section (4) and I now come to the second example he gave, namely the Bantu who has been arrested but not yet convicted and the Bantu who has been convicted. He says that if these two types are taken to the same aid centre it will create a very bad atmosphere; that it will be very unfair towards the Bantu who has not been convicted to bring the two together there and he talked about “these criminals” in the aid centres. But there again the hon. member’s idea is completely wrong. He takes it that every Bantu who is a criminal is going to be caught in a big net and dragged to the aid centre. It is very clearly provided in the first portion of this clause that there will be a list of various offences under the various laws and a person can only be taken to an aid centre in respect of those listed offences. They will mostly be offences in regard to documents. We are not going to take “hardened criminals” there, as the hon. member apparently thinks. We are not dealing here with confirmed criminals. These aid centres will deal with people who have committed one of the listed offences, in other words, people who have contravened the influx control regulations or who have contravened the Labour Regulations Act or who have contravened any of the reference book laws. The hon. member attaches a terrible stigma to these aid centres by suggesting that it will be very unfair to bring all these people together in the aid centres.

That brings me to the hon. member for Houghton who spoke about the courts.

You have not covered a single point I raised. You have not destroyed one of those points.

I admit that according to that hon. member I have not destroyed any of his points, as he put it. But he is welcome to his judgment of my way of arguing; he can judge it the way he likes but in that case he must please also allow me to judge his arguments. I maintain that the hon. member did not make out a case, that I have disposed of his case and that I have proved that he is wrong. I just want to add this: The hon. member is free to seek legal advice but the amendment I have moved will override all the provisions in this clause and in the section when the Bill goes on the Statute Book.

I want to reply to the hon. member for Houghton on two points. She asked whether there were other grounds for refusing a service contract except these grounds.

No, I did not ask that.

Well, then the hon. member must state her case again in a moment. I know of no other grounds for refusing a service contract other than the grounds stated here. But I want to take the hon. member to task for her unbecoming reference to our Bantu Affairs Commissioners’ courts and to our Bantu Affairs Commissioners, the officials as such. She said the Bantu Affairs Commissioners were “ruthless”. If she looks up the meaning of the word “ruthless” she will see that it means merciless, pitiless and cruel, something that makes your blood turn cold.

I have seen the courts in action.

The hon. member says she has already seen those courts in action. Well, I have already seen her here and I have already heard her here. The hon. member is doing a great disservice to the Bantu whose cause she is so anxious to plead here instead of sometimes pleading the cause of her constituents by painting the Bantu Affairs Commissioners in the whole country and the Bantu Affairs Commissioners’ courts so black and by vilifying them like that in the eyes of the Bantu. Our Bantu know the Bantu Affairs Commissioners. We have hundreds of Bantu Affairs Commissioners. They are spread throughout the country and over the entire country large number of Bantu go daily to our Bantu Affairs Commissioners. And that fact alone, the fact that large numbers of Bantu go daily to the Bantu Affairs Commissioners and to the courts and that they appeal to those courts against decisions of their own Chiefs’ courts, proves that the Bantu have much greater faith in our Bantu Affairs Commissioners and in our Bantu Affairs Commissioners’ courts than that hon. member is prepared to admit. The hon. member has really not done anything good to promote the relations between the Bantu Affairs Commissioners on the one hand and the Bantu on the other hand by calling the Bantu Affairs Commissioners “ruthless”

I do not want to pursue this question of the courts. I agree that the word “ruthless” was an unfortunate word to use but I did not understand it in the way in which the Deputy Minister understood it. But I do want him to know that many of us have attended these courts and have seen the bewilderment on the faces of many of these Bantu who have appeared there. They do not even know sometimes why they are there.

I would like to deal with some of these clauses which I think quite frankly are very badly framed and may have very severe repercussions on what we call the liberty of the individual. Will the Deputy Minister tell me whether these people are ever entitled to bail if they are arrested?

Why? They are there of their own free will.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) in reply to my question as to whether they can get bail says, “why should they get bail if they are there of their own free will?” But he has not read the clause. The clause says “Any Bantu who is arrested … ” That is certainly not a man who is there of his own free will.

Where is he arrested—in the centre or in the street or where the offence was committed?

Wherever the police find him. If a police officer decides that a man walking in the street or on a farm or who is in a house or in a hotel or anywhere else has committed an offence, then he arrests him. It is common law in our country that a man can apply for bail when he is arrested except, of course, under the Public Safety Act. Where a man, in the opinion of a policeman, has committed any of the offences listed here, he is arrested. Is he not entitled to bail? Must he sit in these aid centres? Even if he is innocent he has to sit there. Sir, this destroys the well-accepted doctrine of our law that every man who is arrested is entitled to bail except where he is subject to the provisions of this Act of 1961.

You have said that already.

I am glad the hon. member understands it. He is one of the few members over there who understands common sense. Sir, I want to help the Deputy Minister in this legal aspect. I am not trying to be facetious about this. I think this clause is very badly framed; it is open to a variety of interpretations, and it is the interpretations which can be placed on this clause that I want to talk about and that I think the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) spoke about. In the first place Section 28ter (1) (a) says: “Any Bantu who is arrested or convicted on a charge of having contravened … ” Where is he to be convicted in the first instance? Because when he has been convicted somewhere he may be admitted to an aid centre.

He may be admitted.

But he first has to be convicted. Where? Must it be in the aid centre?

In a court. Surely we all know where a person is convicted. You cannot convict him in a church.

The Deputy Minister did not give us the impression that the Bantu first has to appear in a court.

You cannot convict him in a church.

No, but you can convict him in one of your aid centres. If the Minister believes that “convicted” here means “convicted in a court”, the Bantu can be arrested and he may be innocent, and he has no right to apply for bail. There is no provision here that he may be legally represented at an inquiry under sub-section (4) (b). Let me first deal with sub-section (4). Whether a Bantu has been convicted or not, in other words, where he has been found innocent, he may be sent away to a settlement.

You are talking absolute tripe.

No, I am not talking tripe; I am reading out this clause. I think the Deputy Minister must appreciate that we are trying to assist him. We are not trying just to be destructive. Let me read this out again: “A Bantu Commissioner or an officer approved under paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) to manage an aid centre may, notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or any other law, in addition to any other powers prescribed or referred to in this section, in respect of any Bantu admitted to such aid centre or detained in a prison or a police cell or lock-up on account of an offence referred to in paragraph (a) of sub-section (1), whether or not he has been convicted for such offence … ” may after due inquiry send him to a settlement or to a rehabilitation scheme or to any other place indicated by the Bantu Affairs Commissioner or officer. Although the man is perfectly innocent this Bantu Affairs Commissioner can still banish him to some settlement. I do not think that is the intention.

After due inquiry.

After due inquiry into what if the man is an innocent person? He has done nothing wrong. I do not think the hon. member for Heilbron, if he is arrested for some minor offence and he is found innocent would like to have an inquiry held to determine whether he is a fit and proper person to be in Parliament or whether he is a fit and proper person to remain in Heilbron or to be sent back to Heilbron or whether he should be banished to some settlement. Sir, that is the proper interpretation of this clause, and I do not think that we in this Parliament, the legislators of this country, should pass any law giving the power to a Bantu Affairs Commissioner to send an innocent man to any place he likes. I think the whole clause needs proper re-consideration. The Minister can take it from me that this clause as printed is capable of the interpretation which I have put upon it.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is a better lawyer than the lawyers who are helping him. I think he understands the position better than they do. Will the Minister look at this clause and tell me how I am misinterpreting it. Sub-section (4) says that the Bantu may be dealt with in a certain way, whether or not he has been convicted of an offence. Is the Deputy Minister going to say, “You have not been convicted; I say you are innocent therefore and I recommend that no criminal proceedings be taken against you?” The paragraph (b) talks about “after due inquiry”. What is this inquiry that the Minister wants to be instituted? After due inquiry and with due regard to the family ties or other obligations, etc., that Bantu may be sent to his last place of residence or to a settlement or a rehabilitation scheme. An innocent man must go to a rehabilitation scheme! What for?

You are placing an entirely wrong interpretation on this clause.

I could understand it if the Deputy Minister said that it would be in the interests of the Bantu concerned … [Time limit.]

I should like to reply to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). I wanted to do it a moment ago. I want to give him the assurance that I would have done so if time had permitted me to do so. In addressing the hon. member for South Coast my tone will be quite different from the tone in which I addressed the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), because the hon. member for South Coast deserves much more respect, because the arguments he advanced had some substance. I do not want to do him an injustice, but I just want to say, with the greatest respect for his age and experience, that his legal inferences in this case are not correct. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) will agree with me. The new sub-sec. (6) provides: “Nothing in this section contained shall be construed as authorizing the detention of a Bantu in an aid centre”. If words have any meaning, it means that whatever happens to that Bantu in the aid centre, he is not placed under arrest there, whether he has been convicted or has merely been arrested, or whether he has gone there of his own free will or because he was advised by someone else to go there.

I hope the hon. member will follow if I speak in Afrikaans. I could just as well have spoken in English, but I happened to start speaking in Afrikaans. The hon. member made this point, and I think it is one which one should go into. His point was this. There are two Bantu. One is convicted and is taken to the aid centre. The other one has just been arrested; he has not been convicted and he has also been brought there. Now, what is the position? How do they get there? In practice they can get there in one of two ways. The police take them there, or in terms of Section 28ter (4) the Bantu Affairs Commissioner may ask that this Bantu be sent there.

Or the Manager of the aid centre.

Yes. The person in charge of the aid centre may ask that he be sent there. He may ask that someone who has offended against certain legal provisions should be brought there. But what people are these really? They are people who have contravened the Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act of 1945, or who have contravened the Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents Act, No. 67 of 1952. These are the people who may go there. They are only people who made a mistake by contravening the influx control laws; that is all they did. They are not thieves, murderers, housebreakers or other criminals. They are people who, in his opinion as well as mine, are not criminals.

Let us now take the case of the one who was convicted. If he was sentenced to imprisonment, that sentence stands against him; he can only get away from that sentence in the usual way. He must either be exonerated by the suitable authorities—I shall not discuss now who they are—but nobody has the right to take him out of prison and to bring him to the aid centre. Therefore a person who has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and who is already being detained in a prison will not be able to go there. But if he should arrive there for some reason then in terms of this section he cannot be detained in that place, because sub-sec. (6) gives no one the power to limit his freedom. He can therefore leave if he likes. But it is not those people who will come there; it is the person who has perhaps been fined or who has received a suspended sentence. That is the type of person who will come there. In practice this is what will happen: If the persons in charge of the aid centre are wide awake enough they will, before the Bantu is charged—the hon. member can now believe me or not, but I want to ask him to give this side of the House just a little credit for being humane—go to the court and say: A number of people have been arrested under the pass laws; send them to me. The Attorney-General will say: Very well, in any case I do not know what to do with them and I have enough work. Then they go to the aid centre. That is what will happen in practice. When they come there they will in any case not be people who have had so many limitations imposed on them that they should be in prison. That is the type of person who will come there. Those people who belong in prison will not come there. The people who should be in prison will not be allowed to go to the aid centre. It is only particular offenders, under these particular laws, who will go there.

I hope I have now replied to the hon. member. He may perhaps not agree with me that the amendment of the Minister is as wide as I have described it to be, but I am sure that if he consults his colleagues they will agree with me that this clause in any case grants freedom to the person who is only under arrest when he comes to the aid centre. The officials in the aid centre cannot use that aid centre as an institution to detain him.

Can he simply walk out?

Let me explain to the hon. member. If he comes there and does not want to make use of the services offered to him by the aid centre he can just walk out. This clause gives him that right.

What happens to him then?

If he does not want to make use of that assistance, and if he wants to kick his heels against the pin-pricks, she will of course be the first one to encourage him to break the laws of the land by telling him: Do it once more. At present she is just on the verge of becoming an agitator. Let me now tell her this, if I can talk to her as nicely as I tried to talk to the hon. member for South Coast. Not that she deserves it, Mr. Chairman. What will now happen if he does not want to make use of those services? Then he walks out and he continues to contravene the laws which he has already contravened, for which he was arrested, and as the result of which he was brought there because of the goodwill of the Minister’s officials. Then he is arrested again, and then his whole history is laid before the magistrate or the Bantu Affairs Commissioner who tries him. They will ask him … [Interjections.] This may sound very ridiculous to the hon. member for Durban (North), but that is what will happen. He comes to the aid centre to be assisted; he does not want to be assisted; he prefers to contravene the law again at the instigation of the hon. member for Houghton. Then he appears before court again. Remember, the police have arrested him. He is brought to court and he is convicted after having intimated that he does not want to make use of the Minister’s services. Then they will send him to the aid centre a second time, so that for the second time he can say that he does not want to make use of their services. Then he goes to prison. [Interjection.] I should say that they do with him what the magistrate ordered should be done with him. If the magistrate wants to be so foolish as to refer him to the aid centre once more, it is like the story: The first was a white horse, the second was a white horse, and the third one was similar.

Hobson’s choice.

It is not Hobson’s choice. The hon. member for Houghton is carrying on like a cicada. I do not know what she is saying and she does not know either. [Time limit.]

I want to reply to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to say at once that I used the word “ruthless”. I do not think I used it last night; but I certainly used it in my second-reading speech and I meant it when I said it. Because I know that some of the Bantu Commissioners are indeed ruthless in the exercise of their powers. They are ruthless. There are others who do their best but the point I am making—and this applies to all of them—ruthless or otherwise—is that they have an overwhelming job to do. I cannot see these managers of these aid centres, as they are called, doing any better. And they are now being given all the functions of a police officer as well. The hon. the Minister must not just shrug his shoulders.

If you want to be blind, I cannot help it.

Unfortunately I have seen things with my own eyes and therefore I am not blind.

Have you seen it under this clause.

No, I have not seen it under this clause but I can imagine …

You have too much imagination.

And you have none at all. Sir, if the hon. Minister would like to see some reality he must go down and watch how these officials try to cope with the position as it is now. He need not even go to a court of law: he need only go to a Bantu Commissioner’s office in any of the urban centres. He will see queues and queues of Africans waiting to have their cases investigated. Where there are actual courts, there are so many of them that they keep them in huge penned-up courtyards so that their cases can be heard one after the other …

Their presence testifies to the faith they have in the officials.

I do not think they have much option, Sir. They get scooped up in a police van and taken along to be tried for pass offences. 384,000 people were convicted last year of pass offences. They do not go there in faith and good hope; they go there because they have no option. They go there because the laws are so wide that practically every law-abiding African falls under them.

And you do not want to give them the assistance of these aid centres.

My trouble with aid centres is this: Firstly, I do not think, the officials will be able to handle the job because they do not even have the training that Bantu Commissioners have. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what salaries these men are going to be paid and what training they are going to have. It simply says here that they are going to be appointed. We are not told what salaries they will get and what rank they will hold. Secondly, if the aid centres are going to serve instead of courts, they will be in lieu of prosecution, as I have said. Hon. members opposite all behave as if the people who go to these aid centres must be guilty because they were arrested. But thousands of people are arrested who are not guilty of any crime. The only way in which they can prove their innocence is to appear before a court. Now these people are going to be given the option of going to an aid centre and taking any job the official hands out or of going outside and being arrested. To me this is no assistance to the African; it is not going to help him at all. So my old objection stands. This is as bad as an in lieu of prosecution system, which is bad. If you really want to put an end to the difficulty we should be looking for ways of scrapping all these millions of restrictions that are hedging the lives of the Bantu from the moment they wake up in the morning until they go to bed at night. We should be cutting them down and cutting them down drastically. I would have all these mobility restrictions removed altogether, of course. But instead of that we are adding to them all the time, despite the fact that the population is becoming more urbanized, becoming more advanced and not less advanced as each year goes by.

Now, Sir, if I may please put my question to the hon. the Deputy Minister again that I have apparently not put very well on two preceding occasions. I am trying to get to the exact category of people … No wonder the hon. the Deputy Minister never understands the questions I put to him; he does not listen when I ask him. If he would please give me his attention for one little minute. I shall then probably not have to speak again, to his intense relief. Sir, I want to know this: I am trying to ascertain the categories of people who can be sent to these aid centres. I know that anybody who is arrested under certain laws or convicted under certain laws can be sent …

Admitted.

All right; I am not going to quibble over words. Such a Bantu can be admitted to an aid centre, i.e. a Bantu arrested and committed for certain offences under the Urban Areas Act, under the Abolition of Passes Act and so on. Any man who is declared idle or undesirable, in a later clause, can be admitted. Is that correct? In a previous clause, i.e. Clause 8 which has already been passed, there is a sub-clause which says—

I know the hon. the Deputy Minister has attempted to cut down the categories of people whose contracts can be cancelled. But has he in any way cut down the people who can be refused permission by any municipal labour officer to take up or be in employment in a prescribed area. That is what I want to know. Can Section 10 (1) (a) (b) and (c) Africans be included in the category of people who can be refused permission to be in a prescribed area or take up employment and thereafter admitted to an aid centre.

The Native Urban Areas Consolidation Act of 1945 …

Not if he infringes it. I am taking a man who is duly qualified. Can he be refused permission to take up employment in a prescribed area? Can he be refused?

If he is qualified why can he not work where he wants to?

Do not ask me why he can not take up employment, because I think he should be allowed to work wherever he finds a job. I want to know whether the law in any way allows a labour officer to stop that man from taking up employment and thereafter send him to an aid centre? Can he?

He can only send him to an aid centre in these cases mentioned here.

Which are the cases? I shall now leave to the hon. the Minister. Perhaps he can enlighten me on this privately after this particular clause has been considered. I see I am not going to get any further with him across the floor of the House. As far as the Bantu Commissioners’ courts and the aid centre officials are concerned, what I have said to him was not only said in a spirit of criticism, although I do criticize them, but he really must realize what is going on at these places. You have the harassed officials on the one side and the resentful and unjustly handled Africans on the other hand. I hope he does not think that by just setting up aid centres and appointing officers he has solved the problem of human relations; he has worsened it.

I just want to refer to paragraph (a) in respect of which there is apparently a great deal of misunderstanding. I told the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) a minute ago that one could not talk about bail here because the person who goes to the aid centre goes there voluntarily. There cannot be any question of bail. He is admitted there at his own request. He does not land there because he has been arrested. If he were arrested he would say: “Look, I am under arrest; I realize that if I do not go to the aid centre I shall go to the police cell. If I go to the aid centre I can ask the officials there to assist me.” He is then taken there. He is admitted. He is not arrested and forced to go there. He goes there voluntarily. If he is under arrest he can say to the person who has arrested him: “You have arrested me under this law but I want the assistance of a particular aid centre, take me there.” He then goes there voluntarily. There is no question of bail. Bail can only be allowed to a person when he has been taken there by force, when he has been arrested and when he remains under arrest. A person is arrested and he is taken to the police cell or to the gaol. Then he has the right which paragraph (a) gives him, namely, he can avail himself of the assistance which the aid centres offer.

Sub-section (4) is apparently also causing a great deal of misunderstanding. Two types of people are dealt with here—

I have said that two types of person were concerned. The first is the Bantu Commissioner and the second is the official who is appointed as the head of this aid centre—

Here we are again dealing with two types of person: the one who came there voluntarily—

He is not even near the aid centre. That type is completely away from the aid centre. He is in gaol, in a police cell. He has been arrested. Say for instance that person is in gaol in Boksburg. He can then tell the warden that he wants to see the official of one or other aid centre. When that official is summoned by the warden he goes and speaks to the Bantu. And then he can—and this is important—

He can make representations and say: “You must not prosecute this Bantu; admit him to my aid centre.” The value of this whole clause is that you can be of assistance to such people. They ask to be admitted to the aid centres. It is always a voluntary act. There is no question of force. As the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) says, the whole idea is to be of service to the Bantu. He comes there voluntarily; we want to render him a service. We do not want to see them locked up in the yard to which the hon. member for Houghton has referred. That is precisely where we do not want him; we want to canalize him to this aid centre. We want to put them on the right road. I now come to paragraph (b) and this is very important—

It is not an order against the Bantu; it is an order against the official—

“In regard to.” Is that an order to the Bantu? No, it is an order to the head of the bureau to place him in employment. Then it goes on—

Again that is not an order to the Bantu it is an order to an official to supply the Bantu with a document. There is no question about it being an order against the Bantu. Then I come to the following—

Again it is the person in charge of the bureau; he must give the Bantu permission to be taken up in employment—

Again it is for the official to make arrangements for him to be repatriated because he wants to assist the Bantu. And then—

The hon. member wants to know to what that refers. The case has been mentioned of a person who is innocent and against whom such an order may be issued. But surely that is not correct, because the order is not made against him. The order is made against the official. And such an order can only be served on such an official if he must really remove the Bantu. In that case such a person is similar to a gaol warden who has to go and take the person and lock him up if he has been found guilty. You cannot order a gaol warden to lock me up in gaol if I have not been found guilty, Sir. So the whole argument is without basis. I think hon. members want to read an evil intent into this which does not appear anywhere in the whole clause. The whole motive is one of service. The amendment of the hon. the Deputy Minister makes the whole position clear so it is not necessary to enlarge upon it any further.

I want to emphasize that there is no question about our putting him in gaol. It is an aid centre to which he goes voluntarily. If he has been arrested his arrest ends at the door of that centre because once he goes in there he is no longer under arrest; he is a completely free person. Once he is there and he does not want to avail himself of the facilities and he walks out he walks out at his own risk because he is an offender. If he avails himself of the facilities we shall close our eyes to his offence. That is precisely why the official is given all these powers so that he can even go and ask that a person who has not only been arrested but who has been convicted, should be discharged from gaol so that he can give him this aid and assistance. Why do hon. members read all these evil intentions into this legislation, evil intentions which in fact do not exist anywhere?

The hon. member for South Coast spoke about two imaginary persons. Firstly those persons who have been arrested and secondly those persons who have already been convicted. I first want to deal with those who have been arrested. I want to suggest—I do not know whether the Minister will accept the suggestion—that we should add that any person, not only those who have been arrested, who has been warned or summoned in connection with certain of these contraventions should also form a class to get this assistance. A person is, for example, warned to appear before court because he has committed some offence or other. I should like him to fall under this as well. At the moment he does not fall under this legislation. It is only those who have been arrested who can say: I would rather go to the aid centre than to the police cell.

Mr. Chairman, when you realize what the motive is in this clause you will appreciate that there is no question of any force being used or that there are any evil intentions as the hon. member for South Coast has tried to suggest.

The hon. member for Heilbron has painted a very pretty picture. But he did not deal, nor did the hon. the Deputy Minister, with the points the hon. member for South Coast has raised. The hon. member for Standerton, the hon. member for Heilbron and the hon. the Deputy Minister talk about this clause as if it applied only to those persons who are arrested or convicted for some particular offence. If the hon. members would refer back to a clause we have just passed—this shows you, Sir, that they do not even know what they have passed—on page 15, paragraph (7) they will see that it says—

So it is not just anyone who is arrested or suspected of having committed an offence. And when he is admitted to the aid centre, the powers which we are conferring upon that officer of the aid centre may be exercised by him. One of the things that the hon. members opposite have assiduously avoided are the powers that this official has. This person may be a Native Commissioner or he may be some other officer. To say that these men are free men the minute they enter the aid centre is absolute nonsense, as the hon. member for South Coast has indicated in respect of persons in rehabilitation centres. What happens to him? He goes in there—whether he has been charged, just arrested or convicted or whether he was referred there because he has not got a job—and the officer in charge exercises the most extraordinary powers I have ever seen. What are the powers of this official? If you look at 28ter (4) you will see that this official may, whether or not the person has been convicted of such an offence, make representations, he may send him somewhere, or he may exercise all such powers as are conferred on a court under sub-section (1) of Section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and shall be deemed to be a peace officer for the purposes of that Act. A peace officer, of course, Sir, is a polite word for a policeman.

What powers are referred to in Section 352 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act? I got the copy of the Statute out of the shelves here in case my own was not properly annotated because I could not believe what I saw, Sir. Remember, that the powers which are set out in Section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Act may be exercised whether or not the person has been convicted of such an offence. What does that section say? The marginal note is: “Power of courts to impose suspended sentences or a caution or reprimand.” Whether he has been convicted or not, Mr. Chairman. It is an extraordinary position to say the least of it, Sir. This section says—

1. (a) postpone for a period not exceeding three years the passing of sentence and release the person convicted on one or more conditions (whether as to compensation, the rendering to the person aggrieved of some specific benefit or service in lieu of compensation for damage or pecuniary loss, submission to instruction or treatment, compulsory attendance at some specified centre for a specified purpose, good conduct or otherwise) which the court may order to be inserted in recognizances to appear at the expiration of that period; or
2. (b) pass sentence, but order the operation of the whole or any part of the sentence to be suspended for a period not exceeding three years …
3. (c) impose a fine but suspend the enforcement of it …
4. (d) discharge the person convicted with a caution or reprimand.

Why is this official to be given these powers? The clause specifically states, whether the man is convicted or not. We have not heard a word about this from the hon. the Minister. I must say that for a person who goes into such an institution and suddenly to become a free man, as the hon. member for Heilbron said, is a strange way of treating free men, even by Roman standards.

Can’t the official do some good for the person concerned?

I suppose he could do something good to him if out of the goodness of his heart he wanted to do so. I suppose the hon. the Minister could pass some good legislation if he had any inclination to do so.

You would not appreciate it-—not you!

I hope by the time we reach the end of this Committee Stage, the hon. the Deputy Minister will have learnt to contain himself and to be a little more polite to hon. members on this side.

Another aspect about the Minister’s approach to this clause that I do not understand is his amendment to sub-section (6). In that amendment he says—

Let us have a look at this. He says, for example, that the Bantu who is arrested, etc., etc., and put in the aid centre, may, notwithstanding the provisions of this Act, or any other law, be admitted to an aid centre. Then he goes on in sub-section (4) of 28ter—again we have another “notwithstanding” clause—

may do certain things. Which of these “not-withstandings”, where they clash, is the court to look at? I noticed that when the hon. the Minister introduced his amendment, he did not put in it “notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or any other law”. He just said “nothing in this section contained shall be construed as … ”. How does one decide which of the notwithstanding clauses is to be the one which is taken into account, or to put it another way: Which are the ones to be regarded as “notwithstanding” the one that you are dealing with? It is a most extraordinary way of dealing with this, and I doubt very much the hon. Minister’s appreciation of what he is doing here. If the hon. the Minister really wanted these people not to be detained, he surely would not just put one clause in like this? Surely he would deal with all the other aspects of it, as the hon. member for South Coast for instance has done. What an extraordinary police station this is going to be, as the hon. member for South Coast said. Before this person, this free man, knows what is happening, the powers that are contained in this section “notwithstanding anything else”, can be applied against him. But nothing in this section is to be construed so as to give the man in control, who can apparently sentence him to imprisonment without him having been convicted, without a charge having been brought, without a charge even having been laid, the right to detain him. So this just does not make sense. Let us be realistic about this. What happens to the man? He is arrested, and normally he would go to gaol and be tried. But they are going to be kind to him and he is not arrested, they take him to the aid centre. So suddenly he casts off the evil stigma of an arrested person and he goes into the aid centre as a free man. [Time limit.]

The hon. members on that side of the House, particularly the hon. Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Heilbron have asked this Committee to accept their bona fides in relation to this institution, the aid centre. They have asked the Committee to accept their statements that this institution is going to help the Bantu, it is going to render them a service, and so on. What I find extraordinary about that attitude is the fact that this Section 28ter is a very long one, it covers a whole page plus three sub-sections at the top of the following page, and despite that, Mr. Chairman, there is not one word in that clause to state that that is the object of an aid centre, namely to help the Bantu and to serve him. Surely, the hon. Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Heilbron are trifling with this House when they expect this House to accept that that is the object of aid centres, when not a word to that effect appears in the clause. Surely if that was indeed the object of the clause, it would not be a difficult matter to say so in simple language. In fact it would be a lot easier than this long rigmarole that we have here with the various “notwithstandings” to which the hon. member for Durban (North) has referred which makes nonsense of this clause. In the circumstances we cannot accept that that is the real intention of hon. members on that side of the House. We cannot accept that that is what they really intend by this institution. I suggest that we are justified in that attitude because far from stating that that is the object, the whole tone of this clause, of every single subsection, imposes in some way or another a restriction or a form of control, either direct or indirect through an official, upon the Bantu who are going to be placed in that institution. Sub-section (2) incorporates the provisions of Section 27 of the Criminal Procedure Act and states that any reference in that section to a police station shall be construed as a reference to an aid centre. The next subsection enables courts to be held in the aid centres. The next sub-section enables the Bantu Commissioners and officers to inquire into what is to happen to the Bantu. It empowers the officers to exercise the powers under Section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Act, to which the hon. member for Durban (North) referred at great length, and furthermore deems the officer to be a peace officer—that is a policeman—for the purposes of this Act. Then sub-section (5) incorporates Section 5 (4) of the Native Abolition of Passes and Coordination of Documents Act and deems the aid centre to be a reception depot for the purposes of that section. Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances, in my submission, it is perfectly clear that this aid centre will be nothing more than a type of police station under a different name. It is not precisely the same as a police station of course, but it is a type of police station.

During my second-reading speech on this Bill I drew attention particularly to sub-section (4) of this clause, and I drew attention to the powers given to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner and to an officer approved to manage an aid centre to hold an inquiry whether or not the Bantu concerned has been convicted of any offence, and having held an inquiry, he thereafter is given the powers to make virtually whatever order against the Bantu he chooses. That includes an order to repatriate the Bantu and his dependants to his home, or his last place of residence or to a settlement, or rehabilitation scheme or any other place indicated by the Bantu Affairs Commissioner. Mr. Chairman, the Bantu has no choice as to where he is going to go. It is true that the officer concerned must hold an inquiry, but having held an inquiry, and having taken into consideration the family ties and the other obligations and commitments of the Bantu, the discretion is completely and utterly in the hands of the officer in charge of the aid centre to make any order that he chooses. Mr. Chairman, I suggested that this type of clause is found only in a place like Soviet Russia. [Interjections.] Hon. members need not get excited, because they forget the challenge that I issued to them in my second-reading speech.

We do not forget that you fought with the Russians.

They forget the challenge which I issued to them with regard to this clause, which was to show to this House any other legislation in which a clause of this nature dealing with the type of person which can be dealt with in this clause, exists. That challenge was not met during the second-reading debate, and I hope that it will now be met by hon. members.

The hon. member for Heilbron drew a very quaint distinction in regard to this particular clause when he said that after this inquiry which the officer in charge of the aid centre will hold, he does not make an order against the Bantu. Oh no, he makes an order on some individual who is not mentioned in the clause, but the hon. member suggested that it would be the labour bureau, in regard to the Bantu. Mr. Chairman, so far as the Bantu is concerned, what difference is there whether the order is made on an official to do something with that Bantu or on the Bantu himself? The hon. member is very silent now. [Time limit.]

I just want to tell the previous speaker that I think it is below the dignity of any decent Afrikaner to reply to his allegations in connection with Soviet Russia because they are dirty and mean allegations. The hon. member has no grounds for making such an allegation. I think he did it for one purpose only and that is to make headline news in the newspapers so that he can be quoted overseas as another person who is condemning the attitude of South Africa.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Can he mention any legislation where such a clause appears?

That question is replied to by the fact that we are now discussing this legislation. That is an adequate reply to the hon. member.

Let us analyse the actual position in regard to these cases. When a person is in an aid centre, he is not there because of any force that has been exercised on him. I have already emphasized that over and over again. I am now confining myself to sub-section (4). There you have two types of person, namely, the one who has already been convicted and the other one who has been arrested and who has sought refuge in the aid centre. Now he is no longer under arrest. He is there. Under subsection (4) an order is given not against that Bantu, but against an official. The person who conducts the investigation will have to say to the official: I think this is the order I should issue. The Bantu is free to observe that order. Or he can walk out and ignore the order. An order can then be issued that he should be repatriated. But he need not pay any attention to that; he can walk out. But once he is outside he runs the risk of being prosecuted and of being returned to the gaol from which he came. If he were arrested prior to his trial and after the investigation and after all the circumstances have been taken into consideration an order is issued that this official must take him to the rehabilitation centre for instance and he says: “I don’t want to go to the rehabilitation centre”, very well, then he walks out of the aid centre. But then he must realize that he will be rearrested and that he will be properly charged before a court. Or if he is found guilty he can walk out in which case he will be arrested and he will have to serve the sentence which he would have had to serve before the aid centre took him in, and then he must be treated as a convicted person. It is very clear and there is nothing peculiar in this connection. He has the choice all along. He is a free person and he can obey and accept the assistance or not. But if he does not want to obey, in other words, if he does not want to co-operate in regard to the assistance that is offered him he must suffer all the consequences that can be meted out to him outside in terms of the law. He has to make the choice. If he turns down the assistance he must suffer all the consequences. What has that to do with Soviet Russia. I want to ask the hon. member what he has against a man being assisted? Is it only in Russia where people are assisted? Is it only in Russia where people are kept out of gaol? Is it only in Russia where an official has the right to take a man who has already been convicted and who is in gaol serving his sentence out of gaol and to say that he should come to the aid centre so that he can be assisted? I do not know what the hon. member’s opinion of Russia is. I think because a person has fought with the Russians in the war his judgment has become so completely befogged that he can no loger distinguish between what is Communism and what is not Communism. I think he has worked with Russia so long during the last war that he can no longer distinguish between the Russian system and the decent system of giving assistance.

Order! The hon. member must now discuss the clause.

Let us see what the position is when it is not the official who acts. Take the case where a Bantu Affairs Commissioner holds court because in terms of sub-section (2) he can hold court there. Why must he hold court there? It may happen that the person says: I am going to seek refuge at the aid centre. But he knows he has committed an offence. Then he says: “I prefer to be tried in the aid centre where I am a free man. Please let the Bantu Affairs Commissioner come here and hear my case.” he is then tried and he may have his attorney with him according to this clause. That is stated in the clause. The hon. member looks surprised. I think he has not even read the clause properly. He has the right to have legal assistance. The Bantu Affairs Commissioner then holds court there. If he finds him guilty he can do one of the following things. What was the reference which the hon. member for Durban (North) found so surprising? The reference is in sub-section (c)—

What does that section say? Here I have it in front of me. It deals with the power of the court to give suspended sentence, issue warnings and reprimands. Surely it is not such a terrible thing to warn a person or to reprimand him. Is it such a terrible thing to say to him: “Look, I have found you guilty, but I am not going to punish you, I am going to give you a suspended sentence or I am only going to reprimand you”? But the hon. member thinks that is something terrible and he says it is similar to the legislation in communist Russia. Mr. Chairman, the various orders that may be issued—and I want to emphasize it again—are not binding on that person. He has the choice to walk out or to co-operate in connection with the assistance that is offered him, because throughout the emphasis is on the assistance and not on the force, because there is no force. If he does not want to co-operate he can no longer expect assistance, but there is a way out. If the hon. member only knew in what an embarrassing position the Department of Bantu Administration is placed because of the thousands of Bantu who are arrested on the Rand and brought to the Bantu Commissioners’ courts with the result that the Bantu Commissioners are desperate and do not know what to do with all of them. They are anxious to give assistance and the reason why we have this legislation before us is to find a way out in respect of those thousands of cases and so that they can be assisted.

I think it is necessary to clear the air on one point. The hon. the Deputy Minister has twice attempted to smear this side of the House by suggesting that we had links with the communists because of the fact that this side of the House fought on the same side as the Russians during the last war. The same theme was taken up by the hon. member for Heilbron. I want to remind the hon. Minister, in the first place, of the spirit in which we happened to be fighting together, which was well stated by Sir Winston Churchill when he said that when you are fighting with an animal (I think he said a snake) and a bear comes along to help you, you do not turn your back on the bear. But what I would like to point out to them is that in September 1939 Hitler made a treacherous pact with Russia …

Order! The hon. member must not go too far into that now.

I shall be very brief, Mr. Chairman. After these two peoples had been at daggers drawn, in September 1939 they made a treacherous pact with each other to carve up Poland.

Order!

I will be very short, Sir, but I do not remember a single criticism coming from members on that side of the House, and from September 1939 to June 1941 a period of 21 months, that position continued, and I do not remember hon. members opposite deciding to come and help fight the communists.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, we have had this amendment from the hon. the Minister and there is very little doubt that this amendment has come as a result of the careful analysis by this side of the true import of the clause as it stands. We showed very carefully at the second-reading stage that this clause as it stands definitely involves detention, and in particular sub-sections (5) and (2) were referred to. As the hon. member for South Coast said, we welcome the fact that there is an attempt in the amendment to ameliorate the position. But equally it must be said that now we have got a very crazy situation. Whereas before, in its original form, the Bill provided, as was clearly necessary, that in order to complete your inquiry about these people sent to a centre, you could keep a man there and remand him in custody from time to time for periods of a week and up to 30 days, which was a sensible provision—because in a sense if you are thinking of having aid centres of this kind, that is inevitable—and the Minister and the Department realize that it would take time to deal with cases. Now as a result of the Minister’s amendment (doubtless from the best intentions), we have got the situation when in fact anybody, can on reaching the portals of these aid centres turn round and go away. I should be very interested to know from the hon. the Minister whether the fact that a man may simply leave will be brought home to the people who are brought there, whether it will be made clear to them that in fact they have not got to remain there. Because if that is not done, the authorities create the impression that the Natives have got to remain there, and the Minister could very well be liable to an action for damages for wrongful detention, because if his reading of the Act is correct, it gives him no protection here.

I would like to deal with one or two other points that arise under this measure. It seems to me that this is very widely represented as a great aid to the Natives concerned. They can go to the aid centres rather than go before a court for a pass offence and be fined. Now it seems to me that the penalties that are provided here, are very much greater. A man can be sent right out from where he is back to an area of which he knows nothing and he can be detained there for an unspecified time. Where before he might have been subject to a fine of £1 or £2 for a pass offence, now much greater penalties are possible. Whereas before he could go to court and have a trial and possibly prove his innocence there, although an attempt may be made even here, the fact remains that he could under the old system have remained and continued where he was.

I wish the hon. Minister would tell us more about the rehabilitation schemes to which a person may be sent. I am not aware that there are any rehabilitation schemes in existence in South Africa.

You know nothing of the Native Territories. You have never been there.

Well, is that what is contemplated? I would like to know. One knows about work colonies and things, but a rehabilitation scheme apparently, judging by what the hon. member for Heilbron said by way of interjection, is something to which these people who just happen to fall out of a job can be sent and kept working on this scheme. I always thought that rehabilitation schemes were schemes that were kept going with the goodwill and co-operation of the people concerned to improve the whole area, to improve the soil. Now it seems that they are going to acquire another character; they are going to have thrown in among them people who are there, doubtless, completely against their will. I hope very much the hon. Minister will tell us about the new rehabilitation schemes and what plans he has.

Then I would like to follow up an inquiry that has been made before but which has elicited no answer, as to the qualifications of the people who are to manage these aid centres. In terms of the new Section 28ter (1) (b) we see that it says “an aid centre shall be managed by an officer approved in writing by the secretary”. It has been pointed out that in handling vast numbers of people the very highest character and attributes are required. I sincerely hope that these people are going to be of a very good standing and some of our best people in the Department, and I hope we can get reassurance on that point.

Then I want to get on to another aspect, and here again we find hon. members opposite talking with two voices. The hon. Deputy Minister in replying to me on the last clause said that in so far as sending people back to places and detaining them there, many of the Native people were in favour of the strongest steps against tsotsis. One can quite understand that. These are criminal elements and one can understand that the people feel very strongly about them, but we are not merely dealing with people of that kind. No, we are dealing with law-abiding people who may have the misfortune to be out of a job, or indeed who may be denied the very opportunity of obtaining a job because of some belief and policy of the Government. On the other hand, we have, and this is where the double voice comes in, the hon. member for Standerton saying “Hulle is meestal dokumentasie-oortreders, oortreders in verband met instromings-beheer.” On the one hand the Minister is talking about tsotsis and justifying sending them away, and on the other hand we are told that the people who can be sent away are just people who have committed offences in connection with documents. [Time limit.]

I have been waiting in vain for an opportunity to say something. There are a few little matters I want to deal with. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) referred to the prisoners’ friend and,inter alia, he read out all the things that the prisoners’ friend can do. The hon. member should realize that he cannot link up impossible things in regard to the provisions of this Bill. There are certain things that the prisoners’ friend can do, which have been laid down by statute, but which will not be applicable here. The person who is appointed as the prisoners’ friend at an aid centre has powers to assist the Bantu there. It must be clearly understood that once a Bantu has been convicted they can have the sentence altered but they cannot impose a sentence themselves. But now the hon. member asks why the words are used “whether convicted or not”. But he should read further what is said in the proposed sub-section (a), “to make representations that no criminal action be preferred against such a Bantu … ” In other words, in the case of those people who have not yet been convicted, who are covered by the words “not yet convicted”, the official concerned may make recommendations of that nature. He will not have the authority himself to convict a person who has not yet been convicted, and that the hon. member ought to know.

But that is what the Bill says.

No, the hon. member was just looking for something to talk about. He also spoke about the various clauses in which the “not-withstanding” provision exists. I can assure the hon. member that when drafting my amendment particular care was taken, as I am not a lawyer, to ensure that the new proposed sub-section (6) should predominate over the other provisions affecting relevant matters, and as far as I am concerned I am quite satisfied that that is the case. Other hon. members on this side have already said so, and the law advisers also told me that. Therefore I am not going to argue with the hon. member further on that point. He is just splitting academical hairs. [Interjections.] The hon. member is trying to be funny, but he is merely pathetic. He looks funny, but he is not funny.

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) very challengingly asked where else one could find a provision like this. How, is that an argument? That is the kind of argument one expects from primary school children, and it seems to me that the hon. member has the mentality of such a child. Are we to infer that whenever we make a law, particularly in regard to Bantu affairs, we can only introduce a provision if we can find an example of it elsewhere in the world? How many provisions are there not in these laws dealing with the Bantu for which one simply cannot find equivalents elsewhere, and for understandable reasons, because we are dealing with a particular class of people, and with particular circumstances. But the hon. member’s interest and his memory are concentrated too much on Russia and therefore he wants to seek all these things there. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller), who suffers from a noisy, effervescent ebullience, asks what the object is of these aid centres, and another hon. member said that nowhere is it stated that these aid centres should render aid. I shall not reply to the hon. member for Florida further, because he is not listening to me. I have finished with him now.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson)—if he wants to listen to my reply I will give it, or else I will treat him as I have treated the hon. member for Florida. The hon. member referred to the “crazy situation” here. He asked whether we would tell the Bantu: You are now in the aid centre; you know that while coming here under arrest you could have escaped and could have walked out freely. I want to set the hon. member’s mind at rest on this point. Let us wait and see what actually happens. The Bantu will learn by experience what an aid centre is, and not only by experience but through the information given to them. The Bantu will, as the hon. member for Standerton correctly stated, learn about the experience of someone who comes there under arrest and is then released from custody, and who is therefore in a position to be assisted and given advice and to be sent somewhere where he can obtain employment, but he does not make use of that opportunity to run away. The Bantu will also learn what will befall him if he is taken to such aid centres to be assisted but refuses to be assisted and runs away and goes back to his criminal way of life. The Bantu will also gain that experience, and the result will be that the Bantu will learn about the merits of these aid centres. We can write the word “aid” into the Bill 20 times, but it still will not be as effective as showing them practically what advice and assistance they can get in the aid centres. We must just wait.

The hon. member for Pinelands asked what the qualifications of the people in the aid centres will be. I can tell the hon. member this. We draw up codes in our Department for all the various posts that have to be filled in connection with Bantu administration, not only in our own Department but also in the municipalities. The municipalities have managers of non-White affairs, and assistant managers. Some of them are called directors or superintendents. We have laid down codes for all those posts, for the academical requirements and certain requirements in regard to experience with which the officials of the municipalities who do that work on our behalf have to comply. We will of course also have power to say what the qualifications of such officials in the aid centres ought to be. I can give the hon. member the assurance that, although that code has not been drawn up yet, we will take steps here also to ensure that these people have the necessary experience, knowledge and the right spirit for handling this type of work. Here the hon. member should also try to accept my assurances.

I have now had a chance to consider the argument of the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze). I have listened to what the hon. member and the hon. the Deputy Minister had to say in regard to the power of the authorities to detain Bantu in an aid centre. For the moment I am assuming that the Minister’s amendment overrides the provisions of sub-section (4). I just want to say this, that if, as is set out in subsection (2), the aid centre is deemed to be a police station, and if in (3) (a) the Bantu Affairs Commissioner may hold a court in such aid centre, and if under (3) (b) it shall be deemed to be a periodical court of the Bantu Commissioner, and that Bantu Commissioner can deal with all such cases as are brought before him, then upon conviction it is quite clear that at that point the man must be detained in the aid centre until such time as, probably in terms of sub-section (4), he is sent to be detained in a prison or police cell or lock-up. Upon conviction the detention of the convicted person must surely take place, and I think the hon. member for Standerton must agree there.

Then I move to the other point, and that is an objection we also have to this clause. It was very lightly touched upon by the hon. member for Pinelands. It is Clause 28quat of this Bill, at page 25, as amended. The point here is the decision or order of a municipal or district labour officer. Those powers which may be exercised by a municipal or district labour officer are set out elsewhere, but they include the power to order a Bantu to leave an area for reasons which are set out. Amongst those who can be so ordered to leave are Bantu who have been usually referred to as “the protected class”, i.e. under Section 10 (1) (a), (b) and (c), people born in that area, who have been employed there for 10 to 15 years continuously, and the wives and children of such people. In this new Section 28quat a point to which we take the strongest objection is this, that where such an order to leave an area is given, the person against whom the order is made can be left there if the commissioner who has made the order deems it desirable while the appeal is heard by the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner. But if the commissioner who has heard the case or made the order confirming the order of the municipal or district labour officer who makes the order in the first place, decides that the person against whom the order has been made shall not stay in that area while the appeal is being held by the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner, then that person and his wife and children must forthwith remove themselves in terms of the order to the area to which they have been told to go. In other words, there is no stay of execution while the appeal is being heard. They have to get out and presumably under those circumstances they would have to remove themselves to the place to which they are being sent before they can really conduct a worth-while appeal. It is also worth noting that in (2) (b) the decision of the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner on this appeal or review is final. There is no appeal beyond that. We are concerned about this, because let me narrate how the things happen according to this clause. A Bantu is aggrieved by the order of a municipal or district labour officer and he appeals to the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner, but the Bantu Affairs Commissioner having jurisdiction in the area may grant permission to that Bantu to remain, or he may order that he must remove himself immediately, and then only can he appeal to the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner. But these people are all Government servants carrying out Government policy. There is no true appeal in that sense of the word, as it is understood in legal circles, where you appeal to some new authority who, until he is seized of the pleadings, has no idea of the subject matter at all, and who has no pre-conceived notion of what Government policy is. We think this is wholly bad. I do not intend to delay the Committee, but we believe that it cannot be defended that where a man is to be banished, who has been born in the area receives such an order, and he was one of the protected classes, can now be sent to another area altogether and he has to go if the commissioner so decrees before his appeal is heard, and the final appeal is heard by Government servants who are instruments to carry out that policy.

I am glad that the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has dealt with this matter because even though he is a farmer he has a better understanding of law than some of his colleagues. I should like to reply to the two points mentioned by him. Let me just add that if hon. members on the other side will only reveal as much sense of responsibility as the hon. member for South Coast, then we will get somewhere in this House. The hon. member is quite correct in saying that the lodging of an appeal does not preclude the authorities from removing a person against whom the order has been made, but I should like to draw his attention to Section 28quat (3), which makes it possible for the person to whom the appeal is made to allow a postponement of the deportation, if I may call it that. I should have liked the hon. member to place a little more emphasis on this, because this sub-section (if there are no additional factors which make the removal essential, or if the case is not urgent, or if the removal would be unfair or unjust) makes it possible to postpone the implementation of the order.

As far as Section 28 (2) (b) is concerned, which says that the decision of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner is final, the Opposition always object to the granting of any final power to an official. In this case the hon. member has also dragged in another point because he says that the Chief Bantu Commissioner is also the instrument for carrying out the policy; in other words, he is the person who has to apply the policy and who will now have to hear the appeals; he will therefore be the judge in his own cause; he will have to give the decision in a case to which he is really a party. Sir, on that point we will never agree; we must simply agree to disagree. Let me say this to him, however: Even where it is provided in an Act that such a decision shall be given by a person who is placed in the position in which this particular official finds himself, the position is that he can still be brought before the courts if he does anything in conflict with the basic rules of justice. We have often debated this matter here. When the former member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) was still here, we used to have a duet from him and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) with regard to this point, with an occasional contribution from the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). They were the four who always sang this refrain, and whatever we said on this side was simply of no avail. But it is possible to go to the court when the elementary rules of justice and fairness are violated by such an official. But the process in that regard simply differs from the process in the case of the normal appeal. The merits of the case are not discussed; what is discussed is whether the official concerned did his work properly. That is the point. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) reminds me that we have a similar section in the Natives (Urban Areas) Act in Section 10. Sir, we have discussed this subject frequently, and I do want to make an appeal here to the hon. member for South Coast. He has now registered his protest against this provision. For our part we do not accept that by inserting such a provision we are violating the basic rules of justice. We do not believe that we are doing so, but I say again that this is one of the points on which we must simply agree to differ. It is quite likely that if we had been on the Opposition benches our reaction would have been the same as his. The hon. member’s party does not trust this side with those powers. We do not trust them either because the attitude of this party differs from theirs. Even though they do not tell us what their attitude is we can guess what it is. The reason for the difference is to be found in difference between the approach of that side and the approach of this side. We on this side feel that this section does not violate the rules of justice or fairness, because any person who is dealt with under this section will have the opportunity to say that he has not been well treated.

I very much regret the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) did not pursue his argument on sub-sec. (2) (b) of Section 28quat, because although this little clause looks so innocent, it is perhaps one of the most dangerous paragraphs in the section, because it completely removes from the Bantu the right of appeal to our courts, a principle which many of us have always tried to uphold and to defend. [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister says no. But there is a conviction and there is an appeal.

You are wrong. This does not deal with a conviction and an appeal, but with an order of removal.

An order has been made against a Bantu. He is ordered to be removed. It is something which affects his liberty. He has been ordered to go from one area to another. He objects to that order and he appeals to the commissioner, who may in the meantime stay the order, or he may not stay it. That is all right, but then the commissioner confirms the order on appeal. Then this man is still dissatisfied because it still affects his liberty, and in every case except the cases we dealt with last year and before under the Suppression of Communism Act or under the General Law Amendment Act, there has been an interference with the rights of the individual, which I do not wish to discuss now. But it is the right of everybody in South Africa, if he is not satisfied with a decision—and in this case it may be the decision of a layman—to appeal, and it says that the decision of the commissioner shall be final.

But whenever an official has the discretion there can never be an appeal on the merits, as you should know.

I am going to move the deletion of this paragraph, because I believe it interferes with the liberty of the individual to go to the courts of law in respect of a decision which may even have been given by a layman. As the law stands now there is an order for removal, the man is dissatisfied, and the commissioner then confirms the order, but the man is still dissatisfied and he is precluded under this law from taking the matter further.

Yes, he is precluded from appealing on the merits, but he can still bring it under review.

Where does it say that?

It is part of the common law.

But in this Act it will appear that in this particular type of case and in regard to such appeals, the decision of the commissioner will be final, and I therefore move—

Question put: That the words “arrested or” and sub-section (3) of the proposed new Section 2ter stand part of the clause and a division demanded.

As fewer than four members (viz, Mr. Barnett and Mrs. Suzman) supported the demand for a division, Question affirmed and the first and second amendments proposed by Mrs. Suzman negatived.

Question put: That all the words after “Bantu” in line 63 up to and including “officer” in line 72, stand part of the clause, and a division demanded.

As fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. Suzman) supported the demand for a division. Question affirmed and the third amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman dropped.

The omission of paragraph (c) of sub-section (4) of the proposed new Section 28ter put and a division demanded.

As fewer than four members (viz. Mr. Barnett and Mrs. Suzman) supported the demand for a division, the omission of paragraph (c) negatived.

The amendment proposed by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development put and agreed to and the amendment proposed by Mr. Barnett put and negatived.

Question put: That the word “may” in line 36, page 25, stand part of the clause, and a division demanded.

As fewer than four members (viz. Mr. Barnett and Mrs. Suzman) supported the demand for a division, Question affirmed and the remaining amendments proposed by Mrs. Suzman dropped.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—73: Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A.L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Noes—41: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore,; P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.

Clause as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I move—

This amendment is being moved at the request of the law advisors who want to make it quite clear that the proclamation must be one which has appeared in the Government Gazette.

I think we can say that on the passing of the 1936 Land Acts released areas were provided for in the Schedule to that Act, and although the released areas were not adequate for the purpose of providing all the land required in terms of what has been called the General Hertzog Agreement, by which we on this side of the House stand, the position after the passing of those Acts remained static for some time until eventually a law was passed here in Parliament which provided, to put it in simple language, that farms or areas adjacent to a release area could themselves become released, so that by the acquisition of land the next adjacent land could become a released area and could be acquired. That became known as the “creeping paralysis”. Now the Government comes along with this clause and does something which to our mind is quite unforgiveable, and that is that they now take power merely to pass a resolution in both Houses of Parliament in respect of land, and when that resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, that area becomes a released area. Sir, we on this side of the House have in any case been completely opposed to the acquisition of land in this manner or any other manner whatever for the purpose of adding it to the Bantustans, for the purpose of making sovereign independent Bantu States here, carved out of our own country. This clause has that basic principle behind it. It follows that we must oppose this clause by every means in our power. As I say, there is the background to it, but I want to go just one step further and say that I believe the time has come when the Government should face South Africa fairly and squarely and tell us where the boundaries are to be set for the acquisition of land. This is most unfair, it is most unjust. Nobody can gauge for one moment where it is going to end or when land can be added to the released area in terms of a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The right of Parliament so to determine is unquestioned, but we say that the Government is doing an unforgivable thing in bringing a measure such as this before Parliament merely to further its aims of carving up South Africa and fragmenting our country for the purpose which it has in view of creating Bantustans. We shall oppose this here and elsewhere. This is absolutely wrong; this is an evil thing directed at the heart of South Africa, and when the Government is prepared to take a power of this kind, we say it is absolutely unforgivable, and therefore we oppose this clause.

May I ask the hon. member who has just sat down how the plea which he has just made here can be reconciled with the actual proposal made by his Party to give land tenure to the Bantu in the White areas outside of the released areas. Since the hon. member made that plea, why did he not tell this Committee in clear terms how he reconciles that attitude of his with their written policy in terms of which they want to give land tenure to the Bantu in the heart of the White areas, quite apart from the released areas? That is all I want to ask the hon. gentleman. It is time he explained those things to us. With all his sincerity it does not help the hon. member to make such a plea when he is aware of the fact that one of the fundamental proposals of the Leader of the Opposition and of the United Party is to give land tenure to the Bantu outside of the released areas in the heart of the White man’s country.

I would just like to ask the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) whether he is really justified in making a statement of that kind. It says here “any area”. Where is that area? Notwithstanding the powers which the Government had in the past to buy certain land, of which we approved, they have now gone to the extent of buying up all the adjacent land and carrying out the “creeping paralysis” which was referred to by the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member for Krugersdorp has the audacity to say that we want to set up Native farms in the midst of European areas. That is quite untrue. He should know that it is untrue. Sub-section (4) says—

Sir, are those powers which are required by the Government? Cannot they find something that will indicate to us where the boundaries of these places will be set? May I remind the hon. member who has just sat down that efforts are being made to acquire land where the Government maintains that the Natives have encroached upon those areas to such an extent that they are outnumbering the Europeans. Sir, they want to acquire those lands as released areas. Where is this going to stop? I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell this Committee why he wants the power to buy “any land”. Sir, we are the people who are directly concerned; we have to concede most of the land which is required for this purpose and we would like to know from the Deputy Minister where he intends to start and where he intends to stop. I say it is criminal for any Government to ask for powers of this kind to be given to it to buy land anywhere at any time merely by resolution of both Houses.

Here we have a point on which we can have a lovely political debate. We are dealing here with a simple matter but once again we get this old story of boundaries and maps. I am sorry really that the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is not here because he is the man who would have liked to take part in this debate with maps in his hand and gesticulating wildly. What is the position? Let us first get clarity as to the existing position. According to the procedure which we have already followed two or three times in past years and which we also propose to follow under this Bill, this Parliament has the power, by way of legislation, to change released areas which were formerly declared to be released areas. I think two years ago, for example, we cancelled certain released areas in the eastern Cape and declared another area to be a released area in its place. [Interjections.] Do not let us confuse legislation with administration. Do not let us confuse the authorization and the action subsequently taken in terms of that authorization. To-day the procedure is that we can only cancel an existing released area by means of an Act passed by both Houses, and we can then declare another area to be a released area, as we have already done, or we can declare an additional released area without cancelling an existing released area. We have done that already and, amongst other things, that is what we also propose to do in this Bill in respect of the areas referred to here. That procedure has always existed, and my attitude in the past has always been—and it is still my attitude today—that the point raised here this afternoon by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and by the hon. member for King William’s Town is in fact covered more effectively by this procedure rather than in terms of the old method of “creeping paralysis”, as the hon. member called it. When we come to Parliament in the way proposed here in order to have resolutions adopted by both Houses, then what we do in fact is to say, “Our proposal is that those particular farms, from this beacon to that beacon, be added to the Bantu areas in the form of new released areas”. Thereafter the farms have to be bought, one after another, and this method in fact provides a better answer to the question of hon. members opposite who are so terribly concerned about boundaries, because under this procedure the farms will be indicated in blocks. We know too that the organizations of organized agriculture welcome this; they prefer it to the process which the hon. member has described as “creeping paralysis”. We ourselves also call it the “creeping paralysis” process. This is a term really which was thought out by the officials, because once having bought one farm you have to buy the next farm because it is an adjacent farm; thereafter you have to buy the next farm because it is adjacent, and so you have to go on without having any idea as to the total area of land which you propose to buy in that area. Hitherto the procedure has been that we have had to pass an Act here, an Act which had to be passed here in all its stages and then in all its stages in the Other Place, in order to be able to declare a released area. That procedure still remains. But what we want to do here is to introduce a simplified procedure under which the farms will still have to be described in the same way from beacon to beacon and maps will still have to be produced. Those farms are described with the assistance of the Surveyors-General. It is not simply done arbitrarily outside the House; we come to this House in the first instance; a separate resolution is first passed by the House of Assembly and thereafter by the Other Place. Where released areas are cancelled, we do so by way of a resolution adopted in the House of Assembly and a resolution adopted in the Other Place, and that method can also be followed now where new areas are declared to be released areas. All that is happening here is that we are eliminating the various stages, the first reading, the second reading, the Committee Stage, the Report Stage and the third reading in this House, and the equivalent stages in the Other Place. But the whole proposition is still placed before this House. The land is described in the same way in which it is described at present in the Schedules. There will be one stage now in which the matter will be debated here, and then it will come before the Other Place and it will be debated there. Fundamentally therefore the parliamentary process still remains the same. Fundamentally parliamentary control still remains. Nobody other than Parliament is going to determine where released areas are going to be declared. What is being proposed here is simply an easier process, because it will now be possible to declare a released area, not by Act of Parliament but by way of a resolution. The hon. member for King William’s Town wants to know what we mean by “any land”. The English text talks about “any land” and the Afrikaans text talks about “’n gebied”, but substantially it is the same thing. The hon. member need not think that we are going to meet in secret conclave and declare a particular area to be a released area. When we want to declare a certain area to be a released area we will have to come to this House and thereafter go to the Other Place under this new procedure, and the hon. member will then discover what is meant by “any land”. I cannot say to the hon. member at this stage that we are going to come along again next year at this stage and put forward a single proposal under this procedure that this, that or the other farm in Natal or in the Transvaal or anywhere else, be declared a released area. This is something which develops by way of evolution, as the hon. member knows himself as one who has had experience of this matter. Various Governments since 1936 have been carrying out this promise to purchase a little more than 7,000,000 morgen of land for the Bantu. Where we are able to buy blocks of farms, a procedure under which the matter comes more pertinently to the notice of everybody, we prefer that procedure to the clumsy way in which farms have been purchased in past years. The matter then comes before Parliament with the full knowledge of the whole of the House of Assembly. My reply to the hon. member therefore is that as soon as such proposals are placed before this Parliament it will be perfectly clear to him which land is involved and what the size of it is. The matter will be debated here, just as it has been in the past, but, Sir, I know that this is a lovely political subject and we must not begrudge hon. members opposite the opportunity to raise the matter here.

I want to make my position quite clear as far as this clause is concerned. I intend to abstain from voting on this clause. I am not going to vote against the Government on this clause because I believe that the Deputy Minister’s explanation that this is for the acquisition of land, under the 1936 Act, albeit with a different procedure from that prescribed in the 1936 Act is probably correct. I am also perfectly certain that there is not a single White farmer in this country who is not very well compensated for any land taken over under the 1936 Act. But it is unfortunate that the Government has dragged this in in such a contentious measure and it is quite impossible for me to vote with the Government on any clause in this Bill. At the same time I have no intention of voting with the Opposition on this clause. The argument put up by the hon. member for South Coast is all too reminiscent of his famous resolution at the 1959 United Party Congress, and I have no intention whatever of supporting the hon. member on this clause or on any subsequent clauses dealing with the same subject. I shall therefor abstain from voting when the hon. member calls for a division. Since he apparently is unable to support any call which I make for divisions on amendments which actually bear out the very arguments that he has advanced, I am sure he will understand my position.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has made two statements which I should like him to reconcile for our benefit and that of the country. He says in the first place that his party stands by the Hertzog arrangement of 1936. In terms of that arrangement 7,125,000 morgen of land had to be purchased for the Bantu. He refuses to vote for this clause because it proposes to give effect to the 1936 arrangement. But yesterday he made another statement here; he said that he regarded all the Bantu outside of the Bantu areas as a permanent and settled part of the White population.

Nonsense.

If that is the case, does he want the remainder of the land which still has to be purchased under the 1936 arrangement to be purchased in the White areas for that settled, permanent Bantu population?

I challenge you to prove that I said anything of the kind.

I ask him whether that is the position, otherwise he must reconcile these two statements. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. They must make their choice; they must choose between having the Bantu areas together, separate from the White area, or purchasing the remainder of the 7,125,000 morgen of land in the White areas. The hon. member must tell us what he wants to do in this connection. He admits that in terms of that legislation the remaining portion of the 7,125,000 morgen of land cannot all be purchased within the released areas. A certain amount of that land must be purchased outside of the released areas. So far we have been able to purchase the balance of the 1936 quota along the boundaries, farm by farm—one farm here and another farm there. This has resulted in great uncertainty, and we have been attacked here by the Opposition every year. Year after year hon. members of the Opposition have raised a hullabaloo here because they have said that they do not know where the boundaries are. What we are proposing here is designed to bring clarity. As the Minister has said, we are now going to say: “We are going to buy this particular group of farms outside of the released areas.” This will result in greater certainty as to which farms are affected. Under the present system nobody knows which farms may be released. If the present system is to continue we shall have to buy at random along the borders of existing released areas and nobody will know whether he is going to be affected. The Opposition must not go on telling us that we must fix the boundaries and then refuse to place us in a position where those boundaries can be determined. When this legislation is on the Statute Book the Government will be able to say: “This particular area is now going to become a Bantu area.” We cannot do that under the present system. Sir, let the Opposition make their choice. Do they still want to criticize the Government because the boundaries have not been fixed, or are they going to vote for this clause? They must tell us clearly what they want. The trouble with hon. members of the Opposition is that they always want to have their cake and eat it. They are simply incapable of taking a stand on a matter of principle. On the one hand they want to accept the Hertzog arrangement but they refuse to accept the consequences of that arrangement. They want to have their cake and eat it; they want to associate themselves with the Progressives, but at the same time they also want to dissociate themselves from the Progressives. I ask the hon. member for South Coast again to reconcile the two points of view which he stated here this afternoon. Does he want the Bantu, whom he says are settled in the White area, to have land tenure in the White area? If he says “no” then I want to ask him, “why not”? Because if the Bantu is an established citizen and he has the right to live here in the White area, why does the hon. member for South Coast refuse to give him land tenure in the White area? The Opposition must make their choice. We say that the Bantu has no right here in the White area; that he must have that right only in the Bantu areas.

The hon. member who has just sat down has issued all sorts of challenges and made all sorts of statements. He says that if the United Party stands by the arrangement made by General Hertzog, in terms of which we undertook to purchase 7,125,000 morgen of land for the Natives, then we must support this legislation. Mr. Chairman, General Hertzog, in his wildest dreams, never thought of Bantustans. [Interjections.] He never dreamt of fragmenting South Africa; he never dreamt of handing over South Africa to a foreign power and an independent state. [Interjections.] Then the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), who cannot remain silent now, goes on to say—and the hon. the Minister makes himself guilty of the same thing—that this system of proclamation en bloc will ward off the “creeping paralysis” process. But that is not so, Mr. Chairman. It simply means that if a block of farms is proclaimed, it will make the released areas so much bigger. If, for example, a block of farms is proclaimed in the Newcastle district then it will simply mean that so many more farms will fall within the released area. The hon. member for Heilbron then goes on to talk about the greater certainty which this will give the farming community. He says that the farmers will know, when that block of farms is proclaimed, that the matter will end there. But surely that is not correct, because there will still be other farms adjacent to that released area and the process of “creeping paralysis” will go on so much faster.

The hon. member for Heilbron challenges us to say what we want to do with the settled Bantu in the White areas. But, after all, those Bantu are here to-day. The hon. member need only walk out of this building and he will see them in the street. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. member for Heilbron interjects again I shall have to deal with him. I warn him now for the last time.

Sir, the United Party accepts the legislation which General Hertzog piloted through this House in 1936. We stand by the undertaking that 7,125,000 morgen of land will be purchased for the Bantu as an integral part of South Africa and not for the purpose of establishing a Bantustan or a Zulustan or a Vendastan or any other sort of “stan”. We stand by the promise made by General Hertzog that South Africa would be administered as an undivided territory. We oppose this clause because its provisions are in direct conflict with what the hon. the Deputy Minister said. Far from limiting this “creeping paralysis” it will accelerate this process ten times.

As far as the boundaries of the Bantustans are concerned we are still as much in the dark as we have always been. This clause does not clarify the position in the least. The Deputy Minister is hanging before us that same little apron which he has been using in washing his dishes.

I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the question of the purpose for which the land will be used will arise when Parliament is asked to pass a resolution. At the present stage this clause only relates to the procedure to be followed, and I want to ask hon. members not to discuss this subject too widely.

On a point or order, this is a complete departure from anything that has ever been asked for in any Act by any Government.

The hon. member can oppose it on that ground.

It would appear that hon. members over there are under the impression that the effect of the section concerned will be that it will be possible to purchase additional land over and above the quota laid down under the 1936 legislation.

No.

Because what other objections can there be? According to the objection of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) he does think apparently that the effect of this clause is going to be that additional land is going to be added over and above the quota, and the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) is apparently also under that impression. That is not the position.

I agree.

Very well, but in that case the hon. member for South Coast is on the wrong track; what he says is in conflict with the provisions of the 1936 Act, because if we accept what the hon. member for South Coast says then it means that additional land will now be added to the released areas. Surely the hon. member knows that in implementing this clause the position will simply be that where land is added to the released areas, it will simply be in exchange for other released areas but that the quota will remain the same. But the question to which we have not yet had a reply from the hon. member for South Coast is how he reconciles these two attitudes. To which Bantu does he want to give land; where on earth does he want to give land to those Bantu who, as they said here yesterday, were born here, who have certain rights in the White area and who are not citizens of a Bantu homeland? That is his personal attitude apparently, because the official attitude of his Party is that they must be able to obtain land in any White area. We have this conflict here and we must have clarity with regard to these matters, because what sense is there in discussing these things unless we examine the consequences of our proposals? After all, it gets us no further just to advance a certain proposition and not to analyse the consequences of the proposal we put forward. If the hon. member says that he regards the fatherland of the Bantu who were born in the Republic as the Republic of South Africa, and that they have no Bantu homeland, then surely, unless he wants to do a very great injustice to them, he must give them land here in the Republic. The hon. member denies it this afternoon, and they say that that is not what they want. But according to their official policy that is what they do want. That is the position, and I want to make an appeal to hon. members therefore, since we are dealing here with legislation, that we should get down to the logical consequences of this attitude instead of making confusion worse confounded. We must get clarity, and I hope you, Sir, will bear with hon. members if they ask the hon. member for South Coast what his attitude is, and I hope you will give him the opportunity to reply. Where on earth does he want to get land for those people if he does not want to send them to their homelands? According to them the Bantu must live here because they say he was born here.

Sit down.

Will the hon. member reply if I sit down? If he will reply to the question I shall sit down, but I do not want to give up my turn to speak if he simply wants me to sit down and then refuses to reply to that pertinent, cardinal question. He is the Natal leader of the United Party and I ask him to reply to this question. He stood up here this afternoon and put forward an ardent plea that no more land should be taken away from the White areas. But the official attitude of his Party is that over and above the quota laid down in the 1936 legislation, they want to give land to the Native in the heart of the White man’s area. There is a serious difference between the attitude of the hon. member for Natal South Coast and the official attitude of the United Party.

The hon. Deputy Minister in this clause is asking for greater powers to make it easier for him to acquire land. I do not want to deal with the reasons that have already been dealt with by the hon. member for Natal South Coast and the hon. member for King William’s Town. But I raise the question whether the Minister can satisfy this Committee, before we grant him these powers, that he has sufficient trained personnel to look after that ground when he acquires it. We know that much of the very fine land that was acquired by the Department during the last ten years had been spoilt very quickly by soil erosion, that there has been a tremendous amount of erosion in areas acquired by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. It is essential for the Deputy Minister to inform the Committee of what he has been doing to train sufficient officers to make sure that all land purchased now will be looked after.

Order! That is not under discussion now.

I bow to your ruling, Sir, but can I not make the point that the Deputy Minister is asking for powers to purchase land more easily anywhere, and that we feel that before granting those powers, we are entitled to ask him whether he can look after that land sufficiently well? It is very germane to the point at issue that where the Department does purchase land that land should be protected for the object with which it was purchased, and it is essential that water and soil conservation should be looked to immediately on all land on which the Bantu are to be settled, because it will have no carrying capacity if you cannot settle a reasonable number of people on that particular land; and if they are going to ruin that land then, quite apart from the fact that this country is going to lose land which is turned into Bantustans, the land bought for the Bantus will not be able to carry those Bantu.

It is well known that attack is often the best form of defence and one can see the truth of this when listening to the hon. member for Krugersdorp dealing with this clause. It is the favourite topic of that hon. member and others opposite to say that it is the policy of this party that Bantu may buy land anywhere in South Africa, whereas they know perfectly well that that is not the position. I trust they will be careful not to misrepresent the position. They know perfectly well that in the areas set aside for Bantu around our towns it is our policy that the Bantu should have controlled home ownership … [Interjections.] Now the hon. Deputy Minister is taking powers so that his Government can buy land for Bantu in any corner of South Africa, as I read this clause. And the smile on the face of the Deputy Minister confirms me in my view that this is the meaning of the clause. The hon. member for Krugersdorp and the other hon. members who are so fond of attacking us on this point can go and tell all their constituents that in fact their Government has taken power to take land for the Bantu in every corner of South Africa.

What is interesting, too, is that in this Bill the Bantu can be sent to all kinds of places, scheduled areas and any other place, and all kinds of places can now be made scheduled areas even though they are not connected with the reserves. You can have scheduled areas anywhere in the country now. There can be all kinds of areas to which these detention provisions will apply, and that is possibly how they think they will get past the Government of the Transkei in this matter. It is very interesting that the wheels have turned this way, and the chickens are coming home to roost. So I will be very glad if the hon. member for Krugersdorp will take due note of this clause.

I want to clear up just a few points with the Minister. In his reply to me he indicated that the Government was prepared to take certain black spots, or scheduled areas, as they are called now, and to exchange them for new areas.

May I correct that now? The hon. member must have misunderstood me. I summed up the procedures and I said that in the past, e.g. two years ago, we cancelled certain existing released areas and in the place of it we declared another released area. Then I said that in addition we would also declare released areas without cancelling an existing one. I did not say that we would only proclaim new released areas if we cancelled an existing one.

Then I understand. Thank you. I want it quite clear that the particular instance I had before me was the exchange of Scheduled Area No. 34, just outside of East London, in exchange for a Bantustan. That will be found in the speech of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration which he made at the time. That was two years ago. Now there is another point I want to clear up completely, and that is that the United Party has considered it its obligation, having been a party to the 1936 Act, to purchase that additional land for the Bantu. We stand by that to this day. The one thing we objected to was the purchase of land to be handed over to Bantustans.

That is just an excuse.

No, it has been our policy from the very start, to purchase that land if it is reasonably possible to do so. But did we not go out, as a United Party, and purchase land, and the Natives turned round and told us: We are not prepared to go to that area; this is the area we want? They are demanding it. Kaiser Matanzima has said that to the hon. the Minister time and again and he cannot deny it. However, the one point against which I have the greatest objection is that the Minister is taking powers here which differ from the powers which he had before, and let me say here that I would rather put up with the “creeping paralysis” than give any government, whatever government it might be, the right to purchase “any land” as indicated in this particular clause.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) who is not here asked me certain questions. I want to make it clear so far as this clause is concerned that in this clause we are dealing with our homeland; we are dealing with the property that our forefathers fought for and where they are buried, where my ancestors … (Laughter.) Sir the hon. the Deputy Minister laughs about it. That is exactly the position that I am concerned with. This is a laughing matter to the Deputy Minister. What does he know about love of his homeland; what does he know about his ancestors who are buried here. Has he got any ancestors who are buried here; does he know anything about it at all?

Are you the only man with ancestors?

The hon. the Deputy Minister asks what my ancestors were like. I wonder what his ancestors have produced in this generation.

You are a nasty old man.

You are anything but a nice young man. It is about time you learned to behave yourself.

Order!

On a point of order, is the hon. the Deputy Minister entitled to call the hon. member a “nasty old man”

The hon. the Deputy Minister must not be so personal.

Is there not some decency left in this House?

Order!

He called me the same thing, Mr. Chairman.